Post by: Kat Kid on February 13, 2016, 04:11:06 PM
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 04:14:05 PM
Post by: Cire on February 13, 2016, 04:15:02 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on February 13, 2016, 04:18:11 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CNS on February 13, 2016, 04:24:37 PM
Post by: The Big Train on February 13, 2016, 04:26:11 PM
Post by: CNS on February 13, 2016, 04:27:38 PM
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 04:32:18 PM
Post by: The Big Train on February 13, 2016, 04:35:31 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 13, 2016, 05:03:22 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 13, 2016, 05:09:11 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 05:24:26 PM
Suck it conservative bitches...mostly this is directed at Chant.
Wow. What a truly disgusting comment. I'll tell you what. Delete you post and I'll delete this one and no one has to remember what you did.
Post by: chuckjames on February 13, 2016, 05:26:43 PM
Suck it conservative bitches...mostly this is directed at Chant.
Wow. What a truly disgusting comment. I'll tell you what. Delete you post and I'll delete this one and no one has to remember what you did.
Nah I'm good. Don't act holier than thou. When you've been using Libtard for years. Take your L and run.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 05:29:47 PM
:Crybaby:Suck it conservative bitches...mostly this is directed at Chant.
Wow. What a truly disgusting comment. I'll tell you what. Delete you post and I'll delete this one and no one has to remember what you did.
Nah I'm good. Don't act holier than thou. When you've been using Libtard for years. Take your L and run.
Ok bub. Offer rescinded. Your behavior is despicable.
Post by: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 05:38:40 PM
Post by: Spracne on February 13, 2016, 05:43:46 PM
:Crybaby:Suck it conservative bitches...mostly this is directed at Chant.
Wow. What a truly disgusting comment. I'll tell you what. Delete you post and I'll delete this one and no one has to remember what you did.
Nah I'm good. Don't act holier than thou. When you've been using Libtard for years. Take your L and run.
Ok bub. Offer rescinded. Your behavior is despicable.
Pretty disgusting, subhuman behavior on display by charlesjames, here. In my America, we at least let the bodies get cold before spiking the political football.
Post by: Kat Kid on February 13, 2016, 05:45:30 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 05:54:57 PM
Post by: Spracne on February 13, 2016, 05:59:16 PM
Post by: The Big Train on February 13, 2016, 06:04:41 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 13, 2016, 06:04:53 PM
Post by: CNS on February 13, 2016, 06:06:43 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 13, 2016, 06:08:11 PM
Say what you will, but he lived by a code, and he was unwavering.
Not sure how his conviction differed from any other supreme court justice. Easy to "live by a code" when you aren't elected and the only person who can remove you from your job is the grim reaper.
Post by: The Big Train on February 13, 2016, 06:10:14 PM
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 06:13:25 PM
Post by: Spracne on February 13, 2016, 06:20:26 PM
Post by: steve dave on February 13, 2016, 06:24:09 PM
Post by: The Big Train on February 13, 2016, 06:25:46 PM
Post by: steve dave on February 13, 2016, 06:27:02 PM
That's really good SD
Yeah, I know
Post by: renocat on February 13, 2016, 06:29:42 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 06:31:22 PM
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 06:31:59 PM
But America will survive.
i hope so. i really do.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 06:51:13 PM
Post by: sunny_cat on February 13, 2016, 06:53:12 PM
Never wanted him to die, but this is a good thing for the countryPrepare to get crucified by every conservative weirdo on this blog
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 06:55:11 PM
Never wanted him to die, but this is a good thing for the country
from what we know of his death so far, it's fairly obvious that god killed him.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 06:58:33 PM
Never wanted him to die, but this is a good thing for the country
from what we know if his death so far, it's fairly obvious that god killed him.
He gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country, he knew he was just holding us back now
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 07:02:23 PM
He gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country, he knew he was just holding us back now
principled to the end.
Post by: slobber on February 13, 2016, 07:06:46 PM
I didn't always agree with Scalia ideologically, but that had more to do with my ideology. He was a legal purist--a dedicated jurist. He maintained his belief in law as a system of decisionmaking divorced from emotion and politics, even in an era when that was viewed as antiquated. It seems to me that he was more personally involved in writing his opinions than other justices. He really cared about his job. Btw, being appointed rather than elected is a strength of the Supreme Court, not a weakness (@MIR).
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 07:07:25 PM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 13, 2016, 07:23:23 PM
The butthurt on Twitter is already amazing :love:
Post it
Post by: The Big Train on February 13, 2016, 07:24:29 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 07:26:49 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 13, 2016, 07:27:23 PM
Post by: steve dave on February 13, 2016, 07:36:39 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 13, 2016, 07:36:59 PM
Quit trying to stir the pot MIR
This won't end well for you
Post by: The Big Train on February 13, 2016, 07:38:30 PM
Post by: DQ12 on February 13, 2016, 07:40:40 PM
The VRA case was decided correctly btw.
Post by: Kat Kid on February 13, 2016, 07:49:13 PM
Agree 100% with Spracne's sentiments. I liked Scalia a lot.
The VRA case was decided correctly btw.
Sure, his views on the humans were mostly repugnant, but he was a great guy!
Post by: chum1 on February 13, 2016, 08:16:33 PM
36 grandkids!
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 08:18:52 PM
9 kids!!!
36 grandkids!
a vile man.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 08:20:24 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 13, 2016, 08:33:06 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 08:47:10 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:07:21 PM
Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:09:01 PM
:Crybaby:Suck it conservative bitches...mostly this is directed at Chant.
Wow. What a truly disgusting comment. I'll tell you what. Delete you post and I'll delete this one and no one has to remember what you did.
Nah I'm good. Don't act holier than thou. When you've been using Libtard for years. Take your L and run.
Ok bub. Offer rescinded. Your behavior is despicable.
Pretty disgusting, subhuman behavior on display by charlesjames, here. In my America, we at least let the bodies get cold before spiking the political football.
Obama (aka worst president ever)didn't even wait 12 hours to hold his press conf. There's the pub out.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 09:13:43 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:14:31 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:20:05 PM
Yeah, the president should just keep his rough ridin' mouth shut when a justice dies, what a eff stick
he's a moron, and should always shut the eff up.
At least wait until the guy is buried to talk about replacing him. There's absolutely no rush to replace him, as court will be out of session long before a replacement can even be vetted, let alone confirmed. McConnell isn't letting Obama appoint a third illiterate, fwiw.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 09:21:54 PM
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on February 13, 2016, 09:32:27 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 09:40:12 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:42:20 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:43:25 PM
anybody know where Scalia went to undergrad?
New Jersey Aggie
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 09:54:35 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 09:55:22 PM
oh hey, there was another debate tonight.
It was pretty great
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 09:55:52 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 09:59:43 PM
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 10:00:52 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 10:03:50 PM
Post by: sys on February 13, 2016, 10:04:53 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 10:05:24 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 10:05:54 PM
Post by: renocat on February 13, 2016, 10:06:47 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 10:11:01 PM
rubio said cruz can't speak spanish. :D
Probably only knows the 1000 most commonly spoken words
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 10:13:48 PM
Post by: chum1 on February 13, 2016, 10:18:07 PM
Post by: CNS on February 13, 2016, 10:18:30 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 10:27:33 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 10:28:39 PM
Post by: CNS on February 13, 2016, 10:32:28 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 10:34:16 PM
Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."
The people got their say when they elected Obama for 8 years (not 7)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 10:35:19 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 10:35:34 PM
So like who is it going to be?
Obama will pick whomever he thinks he can use to extract maximum political damage from the GOP refusing to bring to a vote. Likely a woman and minority. I would guess Loretta Lynch.
Post by: ednksu on February 13, 2016, 10:36:01 PM
Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."Which is not what the constitution demands. Hint this was a "call to action" for pubs in
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 10:37:04 PM
Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."
The people got their say when they elected Obama for 8 years (not 7)
You don't seem familiar with the Senate's role in the process. Or have you forgotten that "the people" also "had their say" in 2014 when they ousted the Dems from majority control?
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 10:38:20 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 10:39:08 PM
Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."Which is not what the constitution demands. Hint this was a "call to action" for pubs in 08 because RGB, Beyer, Kennedy were possibly going in that term. The electorate spoke. Good to see you mouth deep on party talking points before Antonin is cold.
Edna please don't pretend to know the Constitution. Just save yourself some embarrassment. You know that previously outed yourself as a major dumbass when talking about the Constitution. So just stop.
Post by: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 10:40:05 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 10:41:04 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 13, 2016, 10:45:32 PM
lol child pleaseOf course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."Which is not what the constitution demands. Hint this was a "call to action" for pubs in 08 because RGB, Beyer, Kennedy were possibly going in that term. The electorate spoke. Good to see you mouth deep on party talking points before Antonin is cold.
Edna please don't pretend to know the Constitution. Just save yourself some embarrassment. You know that previously outed yourself as a major dumbass when talking about the Constitution. So just stop.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 10:47:09 PM
This is going to be a huge negative for republicans. Almost worst case scenario
Maybe. But maybe not. I agree that the President will make the most of his nomination being stalled, and McConnel and gang will likely engage in their usual political ineptitude. On the other hand, the one possible silver lining of losing such a brilliant and principled jurist is that this could potentially unify the GOP no matter who the nominee is. Even if it's Trump or Cruz, if the question is whether Hillary will pick Antonin's replacement, the base will show up at the polls.
Again though, politics aside, this is a devastating loss for the Court and for the rule of law. Scalia was also a kind and decent man. I had the pleasure of meeting him once as a law student. I asked what was in all liklihood a very stupid question about a case he'd written the opinion on. He wasn't condescending at all. He was a class act. His opinions - particularly his dissents - are jurisprudential works of art. Even at 79 it just feels like he left us way too early.
Post by: ednksu on February 13, 2016, 10:50:12 PM
:ROFL:This is going to be a huge negative for republicans. Almost worst case scenario
Maybe. But maybe not. I agree that the President will make the most of his nomination being stalled, and McConnel and gang will likely engage in their usual political ineptitude. On the other hand, the one possible silver lining of losing such a brilliant and principled jurist is that this could potentially unify the GOP no matter who the nominee is. Even if it's Trump or Cruz, if the question is whether Hillary will pick Antonin's replacement, the base will show up at the polls.
Again though, politics aside, this is a devastating loss for the Court and for the rule of law. Scalia was also a kind and decent man. I had the pleasure of meeting him once as a law student. I asked what was in all liklihood a very stupid question about a case he'd written the opinion on. He wasn't condescending at all. He was a class act. His opinions - particularly his dissents - are jurisprudential works of art. Even at 79 it just feels like he left us way too early.
Post by: sunny_cat on February 13, 2016, 10:53:07 PM
Post by: OK_Cat on February 13, 2016, 10:53:27 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 13, 2016, 10:53:43 PM
Ksuw: I'll work the shaft and balls sir.
Post by: OK_Cat on February 13, 2016, 10:53:50 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 13, 2016, 10:58:25 PM
Who are generally worse people....judges, or cops? Still leaning cops, but it's closewho runs the trials where cops get off?
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 11:00:43 PM
Who are generally worse people....judges, or cops? Still leaning cops, but it's closewho runs the trials where cops get off?
Typically grand juries, so folks like you I guess.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 11:00:57 PM
Also :lol: at the fanningbrag
Meeting a Justice is a fanningbrag? Mmmmkay. I've actually met three. It's not that unusual for law students to meet Justices.
Post by: OK_Cat on February 13, 2016, 11:03:59 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 11:04:38 PM
Also :lol: at the fanningbrag
Meeting a Justice is a fanningbrag? Mmmmkay. I've actually met three. It's not that unusual for law students to meet Justices.
I think it would be very interesting :thumbs:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 11:09:24 PM
Fanningbrags are unprovoked bragging about things that nobody gives a crap about, like meeting some old guy who is a noted awful human being
Ok. If you believe someone is an awful human being just because they didn't think the Constitution granted "rights" to things like sodomy and abortion, you're just not worth engaging.
Post by: OK_Cat on February 13, 2016, 11:10:42 PM
Fanningbrags are unprovoked bragging about things that nobody gives a crap about, like meeting some old guy who is a noted awful human being
Ok. If you believe someone is an awful human being just because they didn't think the Constitution granted "rights" to things like sodomy and abortion, you're just not worth engaging.
Chant only goes missionary because the constitution
Post by: ednksu on February 13, 2016, 11:28:42 PM
There should be a full debate and a final Senate decision. In deciding on this course, I harbor no illusions. But a crucial principle is at stake. That principle is the way we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of distortion. If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the Federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. The deliberative process must be restored.
Post by: Cire on February 13, 2016, 11:39:11 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ednksu on February 13, 2016, 11:41:15 PM
More on the totally unprecedented actions of the Pub party.
Post by: TheHamburglar on February 13, 2016, 11:53:58 PM
If history is any indicator Obama is going to get his. Also when was big homie Anthony Kennedy appointed to the court? Was it in the last year of a 2nd term president?
He was nominated Nov 30, 1987 and appointed Feb 18,1988. He was the 3rd nominatation in a process that started with Bork being nominated July 1, 1987.
Before someone jumps on this, I have no problem with Obama nominating someone. Just giving the history of what wetwillie asked.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 14, 2016, 12:04:28 AM
Post by: catastrophe on February 14, 2016, 12:09:57 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 12:12:40 AM
Post by: catastrophe on February 14, 2016, 12:15:11 AM
They will absolutely get crap if they obstruct for a year
From dems, not from anyone else.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 12:15:34 AM
Post by: ednksu on February 14, 2016, 12:19:54 AM
Post by: catastrophe on February 14, 2016, 12:26:44 AM
Post by: sys on February 14, 2016, 12:41:10 AM
in a close election it might make a difference, but is the coming election likely to be close?
Post by: SdK on February 14, 2016, 12:46:11 AM
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Post by: Ptolemy on February 14, 2016, 12:55:47 AM
The chickens have come home to roost.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2016, 01:04:21 AM
Post by: renocat on February 14, 2016, 01:12:42 AM
They will absolutely get crap if they obstruct for a yearIf tables were turned,: Hairyass Ried would do the same. These sumsabiches are getting a taste of medicine. Lying bunch of.horsecrapers
Post by: SdK on February 14, 2016, 01:40:00 AM
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Post by: puniraptor on February 14, 2016, 02:27:40 AM
Post by: wetwillie on February 14, 2016, 07:14:22 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 07:33:18 AM
If history is any indicator Obama is going to get his. Also when was big homie Anthony Kennedy appointed to the court? Was it in the last year of a 2nd term president?
He was nominated Nov 30, 1987 and appointed Feb 18,1988. He was the 3rd nominatation in a process that started with Bork being nominated July 1, 1987.
Before someone jumps on this, I have no problem with Obama nominating someone. Just giving the history of what wetwillie asked.
But the libtards said blocking an appointee was completely unprecedented? ????
Post by: wetwillie on February 14, 2016, 07:40:06 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 07:45:13 AM
History will give 0 fucks about any of this.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
This. Also, the American public has no idea how the scotus works or the politics surrounding it. This thread is demonstrative of that (see Scalia hates civil rights - while being the most "anti-cop" on search and seizure stuff).
Really, any discussion on this topic is premature. Obama first has to nominate someone reasonably qualified (he's 1 for 2 on that front), then, and only then, can the pubs decide what to do.
Lol at the "unprecedented action", which is purely conjectural. The dems tried to block reagan for 2 entire years.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 07:48:45 AM
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."
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 07:53:15 AM
Post by: chum1 on February 14, 2016, 08:20:15 AM
Post by: wetwillie on February 14, 2016, 08:28:08 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 08:39:20 AM
Post by: IPA4Me on February 14, 2016, 08:42:34 AM
http://www.wdrb.com/story/31216835/konz-reflecting-back-on-the-day-i-crossed-paths-with-us-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 09:57:02 AM
His greatest liberal accomplishments will be getting two young reliably liberal justices onto the Court, significantly expanding the scope of government, and significantly diminishing the US's power and presence in foreign affairs.
If you're a liberal, he's been ok. If you're a conservative, he's been the most destructive president in history. These arguments are pointless.
Post by: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 09:57:35 AM
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."
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?
Post by: mocat on February 14, 2016, 10:00:17 AM
Quote
he's been the most destructive president in history.
Amazing
Post by: wetwillie on February 14, 2016, 10:01:46 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 10:10:43 AM
Quotehe's been the most destructive president in history.
Amazing
I could give you a very detailed, point by point, argument of all the things Obama has done to tear down the foundations of what made this country the greatest nation the world has ever seen. But again, pointless.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 10:11:33 AM
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."
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.
Post by: mocat on February 14, 2016, 10:11:37 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 14, 2016, 10:21:29 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 10:24:18 AM
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."
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%
Post by: wetwillie on February 14, 2016, 10:31:24 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 14, 2016, 10:37:57 AM
If Clinton gets elected they should wait to appoint a justice until 2020. It's what Scalia would have wanted.
She would be a lame duck after all
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 10:44:15 AM
Post by: CNS on February 14, 2016, 10:53:13 AM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 14, 2016, 10:57:31 AM
How could a conservative possibly think Obama was more destructive than FDR or LBJ?
Because Social Security and the Civil Rights Act are incredibly popular and Obamacare isn't yet.
Post by: michigancat on February 14, 2016, 11:11:02 AM
How could a conservative possibly think Obama was more destructive than FDR or LBJ?
Because Social Security and the Civil Rights Act are incredibly popular and Obamacare isn't yet.
Yeah, but they're incredibly destructive if you stand for what conservatives say they stand for. And they did way more that should be considered destructive.
You could make the argument that Lincoln was more destructive, too. I mean he started the federal income tax, for goodness sake. Also drastically centralized power away from the states and into the federal government and expanded executive power.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 14, 2016, 11:20:28 AM
Post by: renocat on February 14, 2016, 12:20:39 PM
Post by: Trim on February 14, 2016, 12:28:35 PM
How long until Trump publicly says Obama had Scalia murdered? Did it already happen and is waiting for me in the Trump thread?
Why wouldn't republicans take the high road on the nomination/confirmation thing and then whack the new guy (or gal!) when they know it'd be their guy (no gal) picking the next guy? Or whack one of the existing judges they don't like when it's time?
SC Judge'n is gonna be some hunger games crap.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 14, 2016, 12:29:48 PM
Btw, being appointed rather than elected is a strength of the Supreme Court, not a weakness (@MIR).
Agreed
Post by: MakeItRain on February 14, 2016, 12:39:32 PM
Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
:ROFL:
ROBERT Bork was approved :surprised:
Post by: MakeItRain on February 14, 2016, 12:47:13 PM
Quotehe's been the most destructive president in history.
Amazing
I could give you a very detailed, point by point, argument of all the things Obama has done to tear down the foundations of what made this country the greatest nation the world has ever seen. But again, pointless.
1. Be a negro
Post by: MakeItRain on February 14, 2016, 12:49:15 PM
How could a conservative possibly think Obama was more destructive than FDR or LBJ?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Flag_of_Afghanistan_(1880–1901).svg/2000px-Flag_of_Afghanistan_(1880–1901).svg.png)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 01:21:11 PM
Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
:ROFL:
ROBERT Bork was approved :surprised:
You sure? Day drinking?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 01:27:10 PM
How could a conservative possibly think Obama was more destructive than FDR or LBJ?
All 3 are huge racists, coincidentally.
I didn't realize there were still people who think b.o. is black
Post by: michigancat on February 14, 2016, 01:28:57 PM
I didn't realize there were still people who think b.o. is black
low information voter
Post by: MakeItRain on February 14, 2016, 01:29:18 PM
Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
:ROFL:
ROBERT Bork was approved :surprised:
You sure? Day drinking?
Sure I'm day drinking. You called me a stupid eff while misunderstanding the point and calling Robert Bork something else, but yeah I'm day drinking.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 01:31:59 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 01:36:52 PM
:ROFL:
Post by: renocat on February 14, 2016, 01:39:54 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 01:40:11 PM
Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
:ROFL:
ROBERT Bork was approved :surprised:
You sure? Day drinking?
Sure I'm day drinking. You called me a stupid eff while misunderstanding the point and calling Robert Bork something else, but yeah I'm day drinking.
Misunderstanding the point? You are a stupid eff.
Post by: chum1 on February 14, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 01:46:29 PM
Bork was somehow a worse person than Scalia.
Certainly seems like it, quite the accomplishment
Post by: MakeItRain on February 14, 2016, 01:49:54 PM
Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
:ROFL:
ROBERT Bork was approved :surprised:
You sure? Day drinking?
Sure I'm day drinking. You called me a stupid eff while misunderstanding the point and calling Robert Bork something else, but yeah I'm day drinking.
Misunderstanding the point? You are a stupid eff.
What the eff did Ronald Bork have to do with my point?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 01:56:03 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 01:59:08 PM
:combofan:Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
:ROFL:
ROBERT Bork was approved :surprised:
You sure? Day drinking?
Sure I'm day drinking. You called me a stupid eff while misunderstanding the point and calling Robert Bork something else, but yeah I'm day drinking.
Misunderstanding the point? You are a stupid eff.
What the eff did Ronald Bork have to do with my point?
You either had no point, or were miserably uninformed when trying to make one.
The Bork ordeal was the politically grossest thing ever in the confirmation process, as most democrats would even agree.
Post by: michigancat on February 14, 2016, 02:44:50 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 14, 2016, 02:46:19 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2016, 03:17:28 PM
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."
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.
Post by: Kat Kid on February 14, 2016, 03:31:37 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: chuckjames on February 14, 2016, 03:58:24 PM
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."
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.
Post by: lopakman on February 14, 2016, 04:15:11 PM
Quotehe's been the most destructive president in history.
Amazing
I could give you a very detailed, point by point, argument of all the things Obama has done to tear down the foundations of what made this country the greatest nation the world has ever seen. But again, pointless.
1. Be a negro
mir playing the race card again :lol: some things never change....like dumbassses
Post by: michigancat on February 14, 2016, 04:24:50 PM
Bork was a horrific person. Most of the slimy Nixon admin hangers on like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Kissinger were responsible for decades of awfulness but luckily Bork was prevented from doing too much damage.It's amazing how many of them had careers as if nothing happened.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2016, 05:05:41 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2016, 05:06:38 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 05:19:35 PM
Post by: _33 on February 14, 2016, 06:08:02 PM
Antonin 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.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 06:17:32 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 06:30:29 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 06:31:28 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2016, 06:35:27 PM
Post by: chum1 on February 14, 2016, 06:53:28 PM
Doesn't seem very originalist
He'd love it because he was as partisan as anyone. Just more delusional and misleading about it.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 06:54:02 PM
How do you dudes think Scalia would react to politics keeping the seat vacant for 16 months or so instead of the usual 2-3 months?
The "usual" 2-3 months
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 06:56:04 PM
Bork was a horrific person. Most of the slimy Nixon admin hangers on like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Kissinger were responsible for decades of awfulness but luckily Bork was prevented from doing too much damage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Decades of awfulness"
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 07:42:44 PM
Quote
We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.
-RBG
Post by: Kat Kid on February 14, 2016, 08:02:55 PM
Post by: sys on February 14, 2016, 08:04:07 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 08:11:20 PM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 14, 2016, 08:21:50 PM
The libtards are doing a great job of echoing everything that was so dispicable about the Bork confirmation process. Slandering that man to ruin was truly disgusting and unprecedented. Im surprised the well documented lies have resurfaced
I like how you played it safe this time and left off Bork's first name. :thumbs:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 08:23:07 PM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 14, 2016, 08:23:50 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 08:27:35 PM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 14, 2016, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: FSD
The Bork confirmation hearings were a rough ridin' disgrace. A two-year disgrace. Roger was a great man and the libtards just slandered him to shreds. And now they're pissed that Mark McConnell will do the same thing when Boris Obama appoints a nominee to replace the late, great justice Abner Skeletor? Give me a rough ridin' break.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 08:32:59 PM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 14, 2016, 08:34:03 PM
Typos, the new message board "slimed"
Dear FSD,
It's adorable that you think it's simply a "typo" when you call a poster a rough ridin' idiot for not knowing a historical figure whose name you then proceed to get wrong. You played, son. Just take your lumps. Now that'll be all on the matter...at least until you bring up Randy Bork again.
Love,
SkinnyBrendan
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 08:40:20 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 14, 2016, 08:40:55 PM
The libtards are doing a great job of echoing everything that was so dispicable about the Bork confirmation process. Slandering that man to ruin was truly disgusting and unprecedented. Im surprised the well documented lies have resurfaced
Bork was appointed by Nixon for the sole purpose of obstructing justice, he did this because he was promised a Supreme Court spot. What a garbage nominee! The only more embarrassing nominee was George W. Bush attempting to appoint his personal attorney as though he was nominating someone to a country club.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 14, 2016, 08:48:23 PM
Keeping Ronald and Robert straight is so hard!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Focpatentlawyer.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2Fexhausted.jpg&hash=b7b400e9d4df30ed867a1c92fc4b28569f18ad09)
Keep up the superstar police work.
Will do, FakeSteelyDan.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fjobs%2Fpolice-smiley-emoticon.gif&hash=2cd2fe196fbdafe20b201347221d093657adf8ef)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 08:50:50 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 14, 2016, 08:54:02 PM
You could say the same thing about every appointed judge ever, that's mindless idiot rhetoric. Nobody regrets the Bork incident more than democrats of that era. It was the political equivalent of stepping into an open manhole
Every appointed judge fired Archibald Cox?
Post by: 8manpick on February 14, 2016, 09:17:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?smid=re-share&_r=0
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2016, 09:53:16 PM
Post by: puniraptor on February 14, 2016, 11:50:41 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 14, 2016, 11:53:21 PM
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?
Actually yes
Post by: puniraptor on February 14, 2016, 11:55:19 PM
Post by: SdK on February 15, 2016, 12:27:26 AM
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Post by: puniraptor on February 15, 2016, 12:36:46 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 02:21:12 AM
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?
If you're under 40, you've never heard of Robert Bork. If you're over 40 you haven't thought of Robert Bork in 30 years. His name, well kinda, was brought up out of context in the thread because FSD saw it mentioned on Twitter.
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 07:27:14 AM
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.
Post by: CNS on February 15, 2016, 07:29:16 AM
Post by: slobber on February 15, 2016, 08:22:29 AM
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 15, 2016, 08:29:36 AM
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."
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."
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 15, 2016, 08:31:34 AM
Antonin 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.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 15, 2016, 08:33:35 AM
Antonin 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.
:blank:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 15, 2016, 08:34:42 AM
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.
There it is again! More deep concern about the Republic and rule of law. From an Obama supporter. :lol:
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 08:53:37 AM
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.
There it is again! More deep concern about the Republic and rule of law. From an Obama supporter. :lol:
I think you could make a reasonable argument that Obama hasn't been near the dictator the GOP makes him out to be, but alas. You and I aren't ever gonna see eye to eye on anything. But hey thanks to Scalia death, public unions got a big win. So something good did come from his death.
Post by: renocat on February 15, 2016, 08:56:54 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 09:00:55 AM
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."
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."
I forgot how much Bush 43 cared about the rule of law.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 09:16:43 AM
What is the average number of days for the president to make an appointment to fill a vacancy?
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Dunno but it's definitely less than 340 days, way less. The longest confirmation ever took 117 days and that guy took so long because we had to hear about his long dong silver.
Post by: Panjandrum on February 15, 2016, 09:25:37 AM
Would I rather have a SCJ nominated by Obama, or by Bernie Sanders?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:27:15 AM
But with Obama, that's doubtful.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 09:29:21 AM
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?
I've been critical of Obama but I don't think there would be a significant difference in the ideology of the justice they would nominate.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 09:32:08 AM
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.
Yeah his last two appointees really threw the country off course :ROFL:
Scalia actually asked for Kagan.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:32:59 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 09:35:11 AM
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.
What does "fundamentally change America" even mean? Plenty of Presidents before Obama have "fundamentally changed America", it's one of the biggest perks of being President.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:36:10 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 09:39:33 AM
Yet Obama is the first I've ever heard proclaim that was his goal, so you'll have to ask him.
Yea FDR and the New Deal. Teddy being A complete badass. They both set out to "fundamentally change America". Hell even Reagan did, he just didn't say it like that.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:41:40 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
That's nice Chuck, but the new deal for example was a direct response to a cataclysmic serious of economic events.
Obama took over during the greatest economic threat since the Great Depression. And what about Teddy? :dunno:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:49:14 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 09:52:14 AM
That's merely responses to specific domestic issues that are everyday issues that all Presidents have to address, you're flailing.
i got a youre flailing from Dax!!! I feel like a real Pit'r for the first time! :Woohoo:
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 09:56:01 AM
The best laid plans of Mice and Men...
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 09:56:49 AM
The last two appointees are irrelevant to this discussion of the future
We already know who is on his short list
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:57:31 AM
Post by: Panjandrum on February 15, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
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?
I've been critical of Obama but I don't think there would be a significant difference in the ideology of the justice they would nominate.
In the end, the pool of appointable justices is low. However, Sanders is more liberal and ballsy, and may be more willing to push the envelope.
It's clear that the strategy to hold out is a Hail Mary, because I've watched several debates, and none of the conservative nominees have a shot at a general election. A liberal justice is getting named now or 400 days from now. If I'm hedging my bets, I'm pushing for Obama to go now because he's more likely to go for a more moderate voice in an election year.
At least that's my opinion. Could be wrong.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 10:10:09 AM
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?
If you're under 40, you've never heard of Robert Bork. If you're over 40 you haven't thought of Robert Bork in 30 years. His name, well kinda, was brought up out of context in the thread because FSD saw it mentioned on Twitter.
Bork is relevant because it completely dispels the rhetoric that preemptive efforts to block an appointee are "unprecedented".
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
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.
I think the test should be whether the person is qualified. Kagan was, Sotomayor was not. He's one for two.
I agree with Pan, if Obama puts up a reasonably qualified non-psychopath the pubs should confirm. It's not worth the risk. If Obama appoints someone unqualified, they should drag ass and see how the general is going. If it looks R, deny confirmation when it's too late to make a second appointment
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 10:15:24 AM
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?
If you're under 40, you've never heard of Robert Bork. If you're over 40 you haven't thought of Robert Bork in 30 years. His name, well kinda, was brought up out of context in the thread because FSD saw it mentioned on Twitter.
Bork is relevant because it completely dispels the rhetoric that preemptive efforts to block an appointee are "unprecedented".
He wasn't relevant when you attempted to bring him up because I wasn't making an argument otherwise, we were talking about length of confirmation.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 10:23:51 AM
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?
If you're under 40, you've never heard of Robert Bork. If you're over 40 you haven't thought of Robert Bork in 30 years. His name, well kinda, was brought up out of context in the thread because FSD saw it mentioned on Twitter.
Bork is relevant because it completely dispels the rhetoric that preemptive efforts to block an appointee are "unprecedented".
He wasn't relevant when you attempted to bring him up because I wasn't making an argument otherwise, we were talking about length of confirmation.
1. You were wrong about Clarence Thomas having the longest confirmation - but that point actually is irrelevant
2. The entire topic is about blocking a nomination, not the length of time to confirm. Nobody is talking about duration of confirmation. I know you are trying to save face and revise the intent behind you're post, but that's nonsensical and pretty pathetic.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 10:36:13 AM
Also I don't give a damn what you think the thread is about but when you dropped "Ronald Bork" and "stupid eff" in the same post it was definitely in response to the length of a confirmation. Are you Ted Cruz?
Clarence Thomas had the longest confirmation process at 112 days, and we all know why it took that long. Gross political games will be the only thing stopping an Obama appointee from getting approved.
Google Ronald Bork you stupid eff
Post by: slobber on February 15, 2016, 10:37:22 AM
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 10:41:33 AM
For Dax.
Post by: chum1 on February 15, 2016, 10:45:51 AM
I asked the question incorrectly earlier. Has anybody read anything regarding the length of time for a president to nominate a Supreme Court justice? I haven't seen that anywhere. Just wondering if we should expect a nomination in Feb or July? (I am guessing somewhere in between.)
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Something linked above said Obama has taken about a month in the past. Don't forget it's a leap year.
Post by: chum1 on February 15, 2016, 10:48:27 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 10:51:09 AM
I asked the question incorrectly earlier. Has anybody read anything regarding the length of time for a president to nominate a Supreme Court justice? I haven't seen that anywhere. Just wondering if we should expect a nomination in Feb or July? (I am guessing somewhere in between.)
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Sonia Sotomayor was nominated 27 days after David Souter announced his retirement. Elena Kagan was nominated 12 days after John Paul Stevens announced his retirement.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 15, 2016, 10:53:51 AM
I asked the question incorrectly earlier. Has anybody read anything regarding the length of time for a president to nominate a Supreme Court justice? I haven't seen that anywhere. Just wondering if we should expect a nomination in Feb or July? (I am guessing somewhere in between.)
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Likely a week or two
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 15, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272
For Dax.
Great find :eye:
Post by: slobber on February 15, 2016, 10:59:20 AM
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 10:59:42 AM
I asked the question incorrectly earlier. Has anybody read anything regarding the length of time for a president to nominate a Supreme Court justice? I haven't seen that anywhere. Just wondering if we should expect a nomination in Feb or July? (I am guessing somewhere in between.)
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Likely a week or two
What is stopping Obama from making a recess appointment? Since the recess is 10 days my understanding is he could despite the Francisco ruling.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 15, 2016, 11:07:07 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 11:13:07 AM
Because it's not worth it
You're probably right. Altho it would be worth it for me personally just for the meltdown the right would have if he did it.
Post by: slobber on February 15, 2016, 11:32:29 AM
Obama, pick a good nominee and let the chips fall where they may.
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 11:34:54 AM
From my moderate position, it seems that the left is slightly more meltdowny at this point than the right. I can't figure out why. If I were left leaning, I'd save everything until after the right did something stupid. I think a few people on the right are just laying the groundwork now so when they do something stupid, it won't be a surprise.
Obama, pick a good nominee and let the chips fall where they may.
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
For sure, I know I kinda am a little meltdowny Bc I sense I chance to flip the SC, which I never thought would be possible.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 15, 2016, 12:05:49 PM
From my moderate position, it seems that the left is slightly more meltdowny at this point than the right. I can't figure out why. If I were left leaning, I'd save everything until after the right did something stupid. I think a few people on the right are just laying the groundwork now so when they do something stupid, it won't be a surprise.
Obama, pick a good nominee and let the chips fall where they may.
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Dunno if you pass the moderate test
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 12:22:03 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 12:57:36 PM
I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like this
https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272
For Dax.
That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.
Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 15, 2016, 01:01:41 PM
Post by: renocat on February 15, 2016, 01:04:58 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 01:17:56 PM
I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like thishttps://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272
For Dax.
That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.
Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.
My favorite part of this post is FSD making Nixon out to be innocent, and a victim of the vast left wing conspiracy.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 01:31:47 PM
Rough day for chuck.
Post by: ednksu on February 15, 2016, 01:34:49 PM
those left wingers and their sedition charges.....what about all the good things Nixon did.
I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like thishttps://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272
For Dax.
That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.
Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.
My favorite part of this post is FSD making Nixon out to be innocent, and a victim of the vast left wing conspiracy.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 01:39:08 PM
Post by: sys on February 15, 2016, 01:40:48 PM
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?
a 'pub congress looking out for its ideological interest would use their leverage to get obama to nominate a moderate and then approve him/her. they won't do that, though, because 1/3 of them are coming up for reelection soon and no one wants to be the next eric cantor.
Post by: DQ12 on February 15, 2016, 01:45:31 PM
Mine is the law review/law journal thing he just made up.
I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like thishttps://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272
For Dax.
That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.
Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.
My favorite part of this post is FSD making Nixon out to be innocent, and a victim of the vast left wing conspiracy.
Post by: sys on February 15, 2016, 01:46:25 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 01:47:08 PM
I love it when idiots get a hold of stuff like thishttps://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272
For Dax.
That probably was true in the 1970(note the difference between Law Review and Law Journal, that being the former is a technical analysis of the law, and the latter being a piece on what the law "ought" to be). Then the left got all virulent and partisan against Nixon, and then off the rails ideological against Bork.
Per usual, the left has its own set of rules and will lie, mislead, obfuscate and generally throw a tantrum if anyone tries to use their rules against them.
Someone help me, were these comments from Mitch from the 70a or no?
http://dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-Sen-Mitch-McConnell-in-2005-The-President-and-the-President-alone-nominates-judges
Post by: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 01:52:15 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 15, 2016, 02:59:37 PM
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/alex-jones-obama-murdered-justice-scalia-and-donald-trump-next
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 03:34:43 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 06:59:10 PM
Quote
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation
Obama joins filibuster bid against Alito
But senator criticizes tactic, says it will fail
January 30, 2006|By Jeff Zeleny, Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court's changing ideological face.
"The Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," Obama (D-Ill.) said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week." "These last-minute efforts--using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway--I think has been the wrong way of going about it."
body{margin:0px;}google_ad_client=\"ca-pub-8415620659137418\";google_ad_slot=\"5872009880\";google_ad_width=\"300\";google_ad_height=\"160\";google_ad_channel=\"9405729081,1000001869,1000000040\";google_adtest=\"off\";google_safe=\"high\";google_hints=\"senators filibuster appeals court\";google_max_num_ads=\"2\";google_override_format=true;google_page_url=\"http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation\";");document.close();})();' frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="160" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Georgia; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px;">
Despite his criticism, Obama announced his intention to support the maneuver designed to block--or delay--Alito's confirmation this week. The movement, which was launched by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), appeared to lack the 41 senators needed to be successful.
Alito, a federal appeals court judge, is poised to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Senate is scheduled to cast a final vote on Alito's confirmation Tuesday.
The threat of a filibuster emerged late last week after liberal activists accused Democratic senators of failing to vigorously oppose Alito's ascension to the Supreme Court. After Kerry began the effort, several liberal groups mounted a campaign by Internet, telephone and fax to persuade other senators to follow suit.
"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said. "When you look at his decisions--in particular, during times of war--we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch."
But in the next breath, Obama criticized the merits of a filibuster. The senator has worked to avoid being portrayed as walking in lock step with Democratic partisans, but at the same time he is seeking to be responsive to a core constituency.
"We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake," Obama said. "And frankly, I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."
Kerry, who worked through the weekend to get other Democratic senators to join the filibuster effort, welcomed Obama aboard and praised him for "taking a stand on principle."
"It's not easy, but it's important for our country," Kerry said in a statement.
In his television appearance, Obama did not reconcile his views over the filibuster. Spokesman Robert Gibbs denied a Tribune request Sunday to interview Obama but said the senator decided to join the filibuster effort because he believes Alito "would be a bad addition to the Supreme Court."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has argued against a filibuster. Other Democrats said the effort could allow Republicans to portray Democrats as obstructionist.
A filibuster, a procedural move to keep debate alive, could delay a final vote on Alito. If the filibuster attempt fails Monday, a vote on Alito's confirmation is scheduled for Tuesday, hours before President Bush delivers his State of the Union address. At least three Democrats and virtually all Republicans have pledged to support Alito, making his confirmation all but certain.
body{margin:0px;}google_ad_client=\"ca-pub-8415620659137418\";google_ad_slot=\"5872009880\";google_ad_width=\"300\";google_ad_height=\"110\";google_ad_channel=\"9405729081,1000001869,1000000040\";google_adtest=\"off\";google_safe=\"high\";google_hints=\"senators filibuster appeals court\";google_max_num_ads=\"2\";google_override_format=true;google_page_url=\"http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-01-30/news/0601300193_1_filibuster-judge-alito-confirmation\";");document.close();})();' frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="300" height="110" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px; font-family: Georgia; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px;">
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said he also would vote to keep debate open Monday, but he questioned the wisdom of a filibuster, predicting it would fail.
"I think a filibuster makes sense when you have a prospect of actually succeeding," Biden said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."
----------
Related Articles
Confirm Judge Alito
January 15, 2006
Democrats split on Alito filibuster
January 28, 2006
Durbin says he'll vote no on Alito
January 20, 2006
Why the Senate should not confirm Alito
January 24, 2006
Sonia Sotomayor nomination: GOP carefully picking its...
May 28, 2009
www.chicagotribune.com
ConnectLike us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter
Post by: Kat Kid on February 15, 2016, 09:00:21 PM
the bork argument really is fundamentally off track. bork was opposition to a specific nominee. the subsequent nominee was easily and overwhelmingly approved. in the current situation, the 'pub senate leadership has stated that no nominee will be approved, regardless of who that nominee is.
Yes but also because of the glaring non-ideological case that Bork was unqualified on ethical grounds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 10:07:14 PM
the bork argument really is fundamentally off track. bork was opposition to a specific nominee. the subsequent nominee was easily and overwhelmingly approved. in the current situation, the 'pub senate leadership has stated that no nominee will be approved, regardless of who that nominee is.
I suppose if you thouhht it possible b.o. would nominates a conservative, you have a point. The name is a nuance, nothing more.
To ad to the conjecture, if Trump wins the election he could FDR style stack the court and undermine whoever is appointed and then some.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 10:08:52 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 10:29:09 PM
#thanksproglibs
Post by: SkinnyBenny on February 15, 2016, 10:38:59 PM
Speaking of ethics, wasn't there a recent appointee who refused to recuse their self from the obamacare matter(s)
:D
Post by: Spracne on February 15, 2016, 11:28:14 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_tragedy_of_antonin_scalia.html
Post by: MakeItRain on February 16, 2016, 01:17:55 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 16, 2016, 08:59:13 AM
So all of this appointment stuff is much ado about nothing, right? I mean essentially the Senate has 10 months to get this done. If at that time they don't we either get a Democrat President elect or if the President elect is Republican we'll get a recess appointment in December or January. No one really thinks he isn't going to replace Scalia.
Recess supreme court appointment :lol:
That would be an awesome strategy
Post by: chum1 on February 16, 2016, 09:08:11 AM
Eric Posner--son of the most famous, living, non-SCOTUS judge Richard Posner--doesn't seem to have liked Scalia very much.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_tragedy_of_antonin_scalia.html
Quote
His anguished complaints that other justices voted ideologically were met with puzzled silence. Of course, they voted ideologically; what else would they do? The stridency with which Scalia attacked them, especially in his later years, could only make one scratch one’s head. If he was the boy who revealed that the emperor wore no clothes, did he not know that he was also naked?
Scalia refused to acknowledge that originalism does not enable justices to decide cases neutrally. If they choose to adopt this methodology, and manage to figure out a way to make it constrain them, they are committed to enforcing mostly 18th-century values—which are, by definition, conservative.
Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 16, 2016, 10:40:16 AM
The Senate is sworn is before the President, which means that even if a Republican wins the presidency, a new Dem Senate majority would be able to confirm an Obama appointment before the new president could withdraw it. So all in all, the Dems are sitting in pretty good shape to replace the bulwark of Originalism with another "Living Constitution" liberal. That's unfortunate for the rule of law. In a reasoned and just society, laws must be interpreted first and foremost upon what they say - not based upon the result the justices hope to reach.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 16, 2016, 10:48:01 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 11:02:36 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 16, 2016, 11:06:57 AM
Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
This is true for both parties.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 11:16:28 AM
Post by: wetwillie on February 16, 2016, 11:22:32 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 16, 2016, 11:26:40 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 16, 2016, 11:31:29 AM
Dax, you honestly don't think GOP voters aren't motivated by race? How else do you explain Trump's glorious rise?
That's pretty obvious. (1) Immigration and (2) a perception of America in decline. And I know you think being pro-rule of law on immigration is based upon racism. It isn't.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 16, 2016, 11:31:51 AM
Aren't these judges a bit of a wild card as to how their voting record shakes out over time? I mean Souter was a home run conservative vote nominated by Reagan and that didn't turn out so well for the pubs.
Sadly, that door only seems to swing one direction.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 16, 2016, 11:32:55 AM
I'd like to think the republicans have done themselves a big disservice by coming out against a hypothetical nominee instead of waiting to get an actual living, breathing nominee with weaknesses to attack. Their voting base is dumb enough that they are probably taking their best course of action, though.
So you'd rather they pretend that they're actually going to find any Obama nomination an acceptable replacement for Scalia? I appreciate their honesty. It's a refreshing change.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 11:52:08 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 16, 2016, 11:55:55 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 12:02:54 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 16, 2016, 12:07:39 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 16, 2016, 12:11:00 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 16, 2016, 12:50:23 PM
Dax, you honestly don't think GOP voters aren't motivated by race? How else do you explain Trump's glorious rise?
That's pretty obvious. (1) Immigration and (2) a perception of America in decline. And I know you think being pro-rule of law on immigration is based upon racism. It isn't.
So I guess it's just a coincidence that Trump has RTed a guy who's Twitter handle is White Genocide multiple times.
Also just wondering where is all this rule of law talk when it comes to torture of other human beings? Surely there is a part of the "rule of law" that says torturing fellow human beings is wrong?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 16, 2016, 12:51:14 PM
The Supreme Court is disproportionately Jewish. The court should look like the people it serves.
:sdeek:
Post by: star seed 7 on February 16, 2016, 12:53:50 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 16, 2016, 12:55:46 PM
Post by: CHONGS on February 16, 2016, 01:03:32 PM
Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.They don't pass the ball either.
Post by: catastrophe on February 16, 2016, 01:10:31 PM
Eric Posner--son of the most famous, living, non-SCOTUS judge Richard Posner--doesn't seem to have liked Scalia very much.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_tragedy_of_antonin_scalia.htmlQuoteHis anguished complaints that other justices voted ideologically were met with puzzled silence. Of course, they voted ideologically; what else would they do? The stridency with which Scalia attacked them, especially in his later years, could only make one scratch one’s head. If he was the boy who revealed that the emperor wore no clothes, did he not know that he was also naked?
Scalia refused to acknowledge that originalism does not enable justices to decide cases neutrally. If they choose to adopt this methodology, and manage to figure out a way to make it constrain them, they are committed to enforcing mostly 18th-century values—which are, by definition, conservative.
Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?
Not really, IMO. You could objectively say that SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution, and that interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written, not future circumstances.
Scalia was radical compared to the current set up of our judicial system, but I don't think his general philosophy was wrong, or even all that relativistic. Legislators are elected to determine the country's policies, and a person's rights are determined in reference to those policies (including the Constitution, which is another piece of legislation).
IMO, the court (and Congress) have stepped into roles that are contrary to what is provided in the Constitution. That said, I think we have arrived at where we are because most people recognized the Country is better off for it. People only tend to cry "unconstitutional" when it is something they don't like.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 16, 2016, 01:14:09 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 16, 2016, 01:14:17 PM
I'd like to think the republicans have done themselves a big disservice by coming out against a hypothetical nominee instead of waiting to get an actual living, breathing nominee with weaknesses to attack. Their voting base is dumb enough that they are probably taking their best course of action, though.
Yea, if I was in that talking point meeting I would say that the party line should be "we look forward to the President's nomination and hope he chooses a strong candidate as one of his final acts in office." Knowing, of course, you will end up smearing the crap out of the person and faking outrage over what a poor, irresponsible choice he made.
Post by: chum1 on February 16, 2016, 01:36:46 PM
Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?
Not really, IMO. You could objectively say that SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution, and that interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written, not future circumstances.
I don't think you could objectively say any of that.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 16, 2016, 01:40:02 PM
Our rule-of-law on immigration has always been based upon racism.
Not to go too far off topic, but if anything our immigration laws are biased in favor of poor, unskilled immigrants from "brown" countries. See "chain immigration."
Post by: star seed 7 on February 16, 2016, 01:43:27 PM
Our rule-of-law on immigration has always been based upon racism.
Not to go too far off topic, but if anything our immigration laws are biased in favor of poor, unskilled immigrants from "brown" countries. See "chain immigration."
Yes, and you want to stop that
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 16, 2016, 01:59:43 PM
Our rule-of-law on immigration has always been based upon racism.
Not to go too far off topic, but if anything our immigration laws are biased in favor of poor, unskilled immigrants from "brown" countries. See "chain immigration."
Yes, and you want to stop that
Yup. But to say our immigration laws are racist is stupid. Neither is it racist to want to change those laws to focus on admitting more skilled immigrants who can support themselves.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 02:01:20 PM
Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.They don't pass the ball either.
Just stick to statistics and bar graphs.
Post by: CHONGS on February 16, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 16, 2016, 02:13:19 PM
Our rule-of-law on immigration has always been based upon racism.
Not to go too far off topic, but if anything our immigration laws are biased in favor of poor, unskilled immigrants from "brown" countries. See "chain immigration."
Yes, and you want to stop that
Yup. But to say our immigration laws are racist is stupid. Neither is it racist to want to change those laws to focus on admitting more skilled immigrants who can support themselves.
Why not let the market decide which type of immigrant is best for the country?
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 16, 2016, 02:15:07 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/22wyoming.html?_r=0
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 16, 2016, 02:34:39 PM
The market does decide in some ways and it can be quite :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/22wyoming.html?_r=0
Sheep herders chose that life.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 16, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 02:43:49 PM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Post by: Spracne on February 16, 2016, 03:08:52 PM
Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?
Not really, IMO. You could objectively say that SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution, and that interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written, not future circumstances.
I don't think you could objectively say any of that.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I think the first two clauses of catastrophe's second sentence are as close to objectively true as you can get in this wacky, argle-bargle world. Of course, the last clause should be disregarded because anticipating future circumstances was very much part of the circumstances under which the Constitution was written. After all, it was a constitution they were framing.
Whether Scalia should be admonished for adhering to the type of ideologies he accused other judges of adhering to is a question of semantics that hinges on whether you consider Originalism to be an ideology. I would consider it more of a schema or analytical framework, but the modern definition of ideology is sufficiently broad to encompass it if one were so motivated. However, in 1791, "ideology" had a much more specific meaning and referred to the scientific study of the origins and nature of ideas. BOOM. Dismissed.
Post by: chum1 on February 16, 2016, 03:51:11 PM
Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?
Not really, IMO. You could objectively say that SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution, and that interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written, not future circumstances.
I don't think you could objectively say any of that.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I think the first two clauses of catastrophe's second sentence are as close to objectively true as you can get in this wacky, argle-bargle world. Of course, the last clause should be disregarded because anticipating future circumstances was very much part of the circumstances under which the Constitution was written. After all, it was a constitution they were framing.
Whether Scalia should be admonished for adhering to the type of ideologies he accused other judges of adhering to is a question of semantics that hinges on whether you consider Originalism to be an ideology. I would consider it more of a schema or analytical framework, but the modern definition of ideology is sufficiently broad to encompass it if one were so motivated. However, in 1791, "ideology" had a much more specific meaning and referred to the scientific study of the origins and nature of ideas. BOOM. Dismissed.
If those things were objectively true, no one could disagree with them - in the same way that no one could disagree that 2+2=4. In contrast, there is plenty of room for disagreement on both the exact role of the Supreme Court and to what extent interpreting entails considering circumstances.
If you advocate for any of the many possible definitions of these things, it seems to me that you're embracing an ideology that isn't necessarily shared by everyone else.
Post by: Spracne on February 16, 2016, 04:20:22 PM
Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?
Not really, IMO. You could objectively say that SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution, and that interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written, not future circumstances.
I don't think you could objectively say any of that.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I think the first two clauses of catastrophe's second sentence are as close to objectively true as you can get in this wacky, argle-bargle world. Of course, the last clause should be disregarded because anticipating future circumstances was very much part of the circumstances under which the Constitution was written. After all, it was a constitution they were framing.
Whether Scalia should be admonished for adhering to the type of ideologies he accused other judges of adhering to is a question of semantics that hinges on whether you consider Originalism to be an ideology. I would consider it more of a schema or analytical framework, but the modern definition of ideology is sufficiently broad to encompass it if one were so motivated. However, in 1791, "ideology" had a much more specific meaning and referred to the scientific study of the origins and nature of ideas. BOOM. Dismissed.
If those things were objectively true, no one could disagree with them - in the same way that no one could disagree that 2+2=4. In contrast, there is plenty of room for disagreement on both the exact role of the Supreme Court and to what extent interpreting entails considering circumstances.
If you advocate for any of the many possible definitions of these things, it seems to me that you're embracing an ideology that isn't necessarily shared by everyone else.
Absolute precision in law or language is not attainable. Consequently, civilized people tend to accept as a practical matter that truth and falsehood need to be employed as approximations. To argue over what is truly objective leads to absurdities and doesn't really advance the understanding of anyone involved in discussing a controversy. In fact, it just obfuscates the issue. As the poet Dylan said, there are no truths outside the gates of Eden. Or as Pontius Pilate once opined: Quid est veritas? We aren't dealing with a topic that can be analyzed with the precision of mathematical propositions. While I'm sure you could advance an argument that the framers did not intend the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, you would certainly have to rely on the same type of arguments that you criticize Scalia for using. In any event, the great weight of authority and history since Marbury v. Madison certainly demonstrates that interpreting the Constitution IS a role of the Supreme Court. Even if you want to argue that it ought not be, that is a different question than what is.
As a practical matter, "interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written." (Sic). I can't fathom anything controversial about that assertion. Notwithstanding its want of arithmetic proof, it is true per se. But, if you'd like to take a crack at it, I'd love to read your answer.
Post by: catastrophe on February 16, 2016, 04:24:32 PM
Seriously though, your criterion for determining objectivity is just wrong. Just because people DO disagree over something doesn't mean it's actually debatable. The Earth is objectively spherical, but people still disagree over that. The fact that a lot of people disagree doesn't really change anything.
Post by: chum1 on February 16, 2016, 04:40:42 PM
Post by: 114Hickory on February 16, 2016, 04:44:34 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 16, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
I just realized that you guys are right and that everyone is an originalist!
It really was just that simple! I read the post and realized I was totally wrong!
Post by: michigancat on February 16, 2016, 04:57:40 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/what-would-antonin-scalia-want-in-his-successor-a-dissent-offers-clues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/what-would-antonin-scalia-want-in-his-successor-a-dissent-offers-clues.html?_r=0)
Quote
a genuine Westerner (California does not count)
he wrote this in a real life opinion?
Post by: Spracne on February 16, 2016, 05:03:04 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/what-would-antonin-scalia-want-in-his-successor-a-dissent-offers-clues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/what-would-antonin-scalia-want-in-his-successor-a-dissent-offers-clues.html?_r=0)Quotea genuine Westerner (California does not count)
he wrote this in a real life opinion?
I believe he's referring to someone from western North Carolina.
Post by: sys on February 16, 2016, 05:21:06 PM
Quotea genuine Westerner (California does not count)
he wrote this in a real life opinion?
he's right, of course.
Post by: chum1 on February 16, 2016, 05:29:18 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 16, 2016, 06:03:52 PM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Okay bud, keep splitting those hairs
Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 17, 2016, 12:41:46 AM
Who will buckle first in this game of political chicken with ramifications lasting at least until Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg assumes room temperature or Alito or Thomas are found non-responsive with pillows over their heads?
Obama will nominate Cass Sunstien, Bill Ayers, or some other smelly liberal and the Republicans will reject him.
Will Obama relent and nominate a moderate, or will the Republicans relent and buckle under media-led public pressure?
Obama will not nominate a moderate. He is a smelly liberal and will nominate another one. That's just who he is.
The key is the Republicans. If they hold together, this election will solidify the base to the party like no other force out there and they will sweep over candidate Arf-Arf into the the White House. If the RINO's wilt under media pressure and entertain a nominee, they may relent come confirmation time. But if they do, that senator that votes to confirm will be signing his or her electoral death warrant.
This is going to be a very interesting year to behold as a political junkie!
Post by: renocat on February 17, 2016, 09:22:42 AM
Post by: ednksu on February 17, 2016, 09:30:46 AM
Well the race card has been played. We are stalling on the Obama nomination because he is black. ??? If Ben Carson was making the Supreme Court nomination, republicans would.support. I did not think being black or.a.women gives you carte Blanche to do whatever.Are you having a stroke?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:31:13 AM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Okay bud, keep splitting those hairsYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
That could be applicable to any voter base. (But if you have to explain . . .). Never stop with the over the top hyperbole combined with delusional reading comprehension issues
#mirgonnamir #sad
Post by: ednksu on February 17, 2016, 09:31:42 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:38:07 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:40:46 AM
Crazy, huh Whackadoodle?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 17, 2016, 09:41:46 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 17, 2016, 09:43:44 AM
Should we examine the travels and relationships of the entire Supreme Court Whackadoodle?
Yes we should.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:44:35 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 17, 2016, 09:46:26 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:47:55 AM
Post by: CHONGS on February 17, 2016, 09:48:56 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 17, 2016, 09:49:49 AM
They've been doing it for years, FBI as well.
Which one of them murdered Scalia?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:50:42 AM
Post by: ednksu on February 17, 2016, 09:53:32 AM
Should we examine the travels and relationships of the entire Supreme Court Whackadoodle?Well they are supposed to list these types of gifts on disclosure. The radical right has had issues with this in the past, see Thomas.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:54:12 AM
Post by: ednksu on February 17, 2016, 09:59:36 AM
Ah yes the "radical right" LOL.goatse level butthurt
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 10:00:01 AM
Post by: DQ12 on February 17, 2016, 10:36:50 AM
Sounds good, in fact let's put cameras in the SC as well.Like, during oral arguments? I'd be down. The rationale they use for why they don't want cameras is pretty damn condescending.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 17, 2016, 10:37:57 AM
Sounds good, in fact let's put cameras in the SC as well.Like, during oral arguments? I'd be down. The rationale they use for why they don't want cameras is pretty damn condescending.
What is it
Post by: DQ12 on February 17, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
a few months ago, I believe it was Breyer who was on Colbert's late night show, and he said that essentially, they don't want to broadcast oral arguments because oral arguments factor so little into the final decision that it would give the public an incorrect impression of how cases are decided.Sounds good, in fact let's put cameras in the SC as well.Like, during oral arguments? I'd be down. The rationale they use for why they don't want cameras is pretty damn condescending.
What is it
Post by: star seed 7 on February 17, 2016, 11:29:14 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 11:29:15 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 17, 2016, 11:32:38 AM
Post by: DQ12 on February 17, 2016, 11:38:32 AM
Why even have oral arguments then?Theoretically it gives the court a chance to better understand the parties' arguments in their respective briefs. FWIW, audio recordings and transcripts of oral arguments are available.
Post by: renocat on February 17, 2016, 11:57:07 AM
Post by: ChiComCat on February 17, 2016, 11:57:45 AM
Why even have oral arguments then?Theoretically it gives the court a chance to better understand the parties' arguments in their respective briefs. FWIW, audio recordings and transcripts of oral arguments are available.
John Oliver already solved this
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/22/7038259/john-oliver-all-dog-supreme-court-argue-aereo-case
Post by: MakeItRain on February 17, 2016, 12:59:12 PM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Okay bud, keep splitting those hairsYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
That could be applicable to any voter base. (But if you have to explain . . .). Never stop with the over the top hyperbole combined with delusional reading comprehension issues
#mirgonnamir #sad
You didn't say it about any voter base though, as a matter of fact it has only been said about one. You keep equivocating though, we can all read. Keep swimming lil buddy, we'll eventually forget.
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 17, 2016, 01:26:05 PM
No.cameras in the Supreme Court. They ruined Congress and has led.to divided partisan government. We don't need.people in black Hillary pantsuits showboating.
take a break with this sock for a while. come back refreshed.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 01:30:26 PM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Okay bud, keep splitting those hairsYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
That could be applicable to any voter base. (But if you have to explain . . .). Never stop with the over the top hyperbole combined with delusional reading comprehension issues
#mirgonnamir #sad
You didn't say it about any voter base though, as a matter of fact it has only been said about one. You keep equivocating though, we can all read. Keep swimming lil buddy, we'll eventually forget.
:lol:
Like I said, delusion coupled with hyperbolic over the top rhetoric #mirgonnamir
Totally innocuous, and generic comment taken completely out of context . . . but #sad
Post by: MakeItRain on February 17, 2016, 02:44:56 PM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Okay bud, keep splitting those hairsYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
That could be applicable to any voter base. (But if you have to explain . . .). Never stop with the over the top hyperbole combined with delusional reading comprehension issues
#mirgonnamir #sad
You didn't say it about any voter base though, as a matter of fact it has only been said about one. You keep equivocating though, we can all read. Keep swimming lil buddy, we'll eventually forget.
:lol:
Like I said, delusion coupled with hyperbolic over the top rhetoric #mirgonnamir
Totally innocuous, and generic comment taken completely out of context . . . but #sad
You want to keep your racist comment here in the fold I'll be completely happy to oblige you. Again, we can all read.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 02:47:26 PM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Okay bud, keep splitting those hairsYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
That could be applicable to any voter base. (But if you have to explain . . .). Never stop with the over the top hyperbole combined with delusional reading comprehension issues
#mirgonnamir #sad
You didn't say it about any voter base though, as a matter of fact it has only been said about one. You keep equivocating though, we can all read. Keep swimming lil buddy, we'll eventually forget.
:lol:
Like I said, delusion coupled with hyperbolic over the top rhetoric #mirgonnamir
Totally innocuous, and generic comment taken completely out of context . . . but #sad
You want to keep your racist comment here in the fold I'll be completely happy to oblige you. Again, we can all read.
If you want to believe that substantial elements of a voter base don't vote based solely on race in certain situations, that's fine. It only adds intellectual dishonesty to your long list of issues.
@sohateful @mirgonnamir
Post by: MakeItRain on February 17, 2016, 08:00:03 PM
I love how dax still thinks Obama only got elected because he's black, but rejects any notion that he is the racist. "It's not me it's those people."
Absolutely no where did I say "only got elected because he's black", MIR is so freaking weird and always butthurt.
Okay bud, keep splitting those hairsYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.
If you want to believe that substantial elements of a voter base don't vote based solely on race in certain situations, that's fine. It only adds intellectual dishonesty to your long list of issues.
@sohateful @mirgonnamir
There we go, I cleaned it up a bit to cut out a few of your excuses. It seems you are incapable of shutting up or at the very least apologize for being slightly inarticulate. So I'll happily keep bumping you saying Obama was only elected because he's black.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 08:47:39 PM
#sohateful
Post by: MakeItRain on February 17, 2016, 09:06:49 PM
Lol, I'll always lampoon intellectual dishonesty and hyperbolic delusion that you manage to define and redefine nearly everyday.
#sohateful
Well at least you didn't quite this again
Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color
we're making progress
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:10:50 PM
Lol, I'll always lampoon intellectual dishonesty and hyperbolic delusion that you manage to define and redefine nearly everyday.
#sohateful
Well at least you didn't quite this againYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color
we're making progress
I'll quote it all day. In your hyperbolic rages you've watered down the term "racist" to the point no one takes it (when you toss it around) seriously anymore. It's sad and pathetic but #mirisgonnamir #sohateful. #intellectualdishonesty
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 17, 2016, 09:36:57 PM
Quote
The President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 2012 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Republicans won the 2014 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Post by: sys on February 17, 2016, 09:42:23 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 17, 2016, 10:05:09 PM
For once, I agree completely with the NYT Editorial Board. The Senate should refuse to confirm the President's pick (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/opinion/against-robert-bork-his-bill-of-rights-is-different.html):Did you think this was clever?QuoteThe President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 2012 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Republicans won the 2014 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 17, 2016, 10:36:34 PM
They've been absolutely shredded on their dishonest UNPRECEDENTED talking points.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 17, 2016, 11:09:45 PM
Lol, I'll always lampoon intellectual dishonesty and hyperbolic delusion that you manage to define and redefine nearly everyday.
#sohateful
Well at least you didn't quite this againYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color
we're making progress
I'll quote it all day. In your hyperbolic rages you've watered down the term "racist" to the point no one takes it (when you toss it around) seriously anymore. It's sad and pathetic but #mirisgonnamir #sohateful. #intellectualdishonesty
I actually don't use it very much. We've been over this a million times on this blog. There's a search function right up there, feel free to use it to prove me wrong. I'd say strongly intimidating that black period only voted for Obama because they're black certainly rises to racism. BTW, you think I give a crap how you or anyone else perceives the power of the word racism. Too you and your ilk you gotta commit a lynching while writing n-word on the body for the racism tag to stick.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 11:17:52 PM
Lol, I'll always lampoon intellectual dishonesty and hyperbolic delusion that you manage to define and redefine nearly everyday.
#sohateful
Well at least you didn't quite this againYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color
we're making progress
I'll quote it all day. In your hyperbolic rages you've watered down the term "racist" to the point no one takes it (when you toss it around) seriously anymore. It's sad and pathetic but #mirisgonnamir #sohateful. #intellectualdishonesty
I actually don't use it very much. We've been over this a million times on this blog. There's a search function right up there, feel free to use it to prove me wrong. I'd say strongly intimidating that black period only voted for Obama because they're black certainly rises to racism. BTW, you think I give a crap how you or anyone else perceives the power of the word racism. Too you and your ilk you gotta commit a lynching while writing n-word on the body for the racism tag to stick.
Case in point of hyperbolic delusion.
By implication you are saying that I said all black people who voted for Obama only voted for him because he was black. That's not what I said at all. The fact that you don't get that is sadly not the least bit surprising.
The rest is just typical enraged over the top MIR bullshit.
#sad #pathetic
Post by: MakeItRain on February 18, 2016, 12:23:10 AM
Lol, I'll always lampoon intellectual dishonesty and hyperbolic delusion that you manage to define and redefine nearly everyday.
#sohateful
Well at least you didn't quite this againYes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color
we're making progress
I'll quote it all day. In your hyperbolic rages you've watered down the term "racist" to the point no one takes it (when you toss it around) seriously anymore. It's sad and pathetic but #mirisgonnamir #sohateful. #intellectualdishonesty
I actually don't use it very much. We've been over this a million times on this blog. There's a search function right up there, feel free to use it to prove me wrong. I'd say strongly intimidating that black period only voted for Obama because they're black certainly rises to racism. BTW, you think I give a crap how you or anyone else perceives the power of the word racism. Too you and your ilk you gotta commit a lynching while writing n-word on the body for the racism tag to stick.
Case in point of hyperbolic delusion.
By implication you are saying that I said all black people who voted for Obama only voted for him because he was black. That's not what I said at all. The fact that you don't get that is sadly not the least bit surprising.
The rest is just typical enraged over the top MIR bullshit.
#sad #pathetic
Yeah man, I'm enraged. Enraged black man, keep blowing that dog whistle. Not racist at all, totes enlightened. How many posts until you accuse me of being lazy?
Post by: Ptolemy on February 18, 2016, 12:31:51 AM
Time magazine: "Yes Obama’s blackness is part of why many blacks support him."
According to CNN exit polls, 93% of African-Americans, 71% of Hispanics and 73% of Asians supported Obama over Romney.
Duh!
Post by: gatoveintisiet on February 18, 2016, 12:37:18 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 18, 2016, 12:37:43 AM
Post by: gatoveintisiet on February 18, 2016, 12:39:50 AM
Post by: slobber on February 18, 2016, 05:28:58 AM
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2016, 07:05:28 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2016, 09:36:40 AM
For once, I agree completely with the NYT Editorial Board. The Senate should refuse to confirm the President's pick (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/opinion/against-robert-bork-his-bill-of-rights-is-different.html):Did you think this was clever?QuoteThe President’s supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 2012 election, he has every right to try to change the Court’s direction. Yes, but the Republicans won the 2014 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist. This is not the same Senate that confirmed Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Why, whatever do you mean? :dunno:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2016, 09:44:11 AM
of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.
if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Post by: ChiComCat on February 18, 2016, 10:03:57 AM
of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2016, 10:16:42 AM
of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice if the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it. I don't think the GOP sees it, either. Which is why even if they've got less than a 50% chance of winning both the WH and Senate in 2016, they just don't seem to have much to lose. Conversely, the gain is that this will galvanize GOP turnout for the 2016 election (more, I think, than it will for the Dems).
Post by: ednksu on February 18, 2016, 10:20:52 AM
The gamble itself is unconstitutional. The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point." The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*.of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 18, 2016, 10:22:03 AM
of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
He shouldn't have to and frankly he better not choose a moderate appointee. No other current supreme court justice was the byproduct of a political compromise, why would we start now? We heard that stay about Scalia being confirmed 98-0, that said just as much, if not more about the political climate than it did Scalia. Congress is like a petulant child, you don't give them their way when they misbehave. Force them to behave and if they don't they can deal with any potential consequences.
Post by: ednksu on February 18, 2016, 10:34:42 AM
Arguably Kennedyof course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
He shouldn't have to and frankly he better not choose a moderate appointee. No other current supreme court justice was the byproduct of a political compromise, why would we start now? We heard that stay about Scalia being confirmed 98-0, that said just as much, if not more about the political climate than it did Scalia. Congress is like a petulant child, you don't give them their way when they misbehave. Force them to behave and if they don't they can deal with any potential consequences.
Post by: michigancat on February 18, 2016, 10:34:48 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2016, 10:55:28 AM
The gamble itself is unconstitutional. The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point." The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*.of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.
Oh this must be one of those Living Constitution things as opposed to, you know, what the Constitution actually says. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to confirm or even vote on a nominee. Maybe it's in one of those penumbras.
By the way, I know this discussion is probably confusing to somebody who thought "Living Constitution" meant Anendments.
Post by: Kat Kid on February 18, 2016, 11:05:14 AM
Post by: catastrophe on February 18, 2016, 11:26:59 AM
The constitution calls for a Supreme Court. There is no requirement that 9 justices sit on the court, nor has the court always been comprised of 9 justices.
Post by: _33 on February 18, 2016, 11:31:09 AM
Politics. :lol:
Post by: Cire on February 18, 2016, 11:43:00 AM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: ChiComCat on February 18, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
Post by: Yard Dog on February 18, 2016, 12:07:41 PM
http://www.youngcons.com/list-of-democrat-senators-who-filibustered-gwbs-final-pick-for-scotus/
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 12:25:05 PM
If the political situations were reversed everyone on this board would have the exact opposite opinions as they have now. :lol:
Politics. :lol:
Not everyone :D
Post by: sys on February 18, 2016, 12:28:23 PM
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
it's even worse than that. i can't think of any reason why the crats wouldn't fillibuster the crap out of a pub nominee if they lose the presidency. so even if the pubs hold the senate (if they get a president, they'll almost certainly keep the senate), there's not likely to be any quick resolution that would allow a conservative judge appointment.
Post by: ednksu on February 18, 2016, 12:36:53 PM
https://twitter.com/lindarutter/status/699947031658422272
http://www.youngcons.com/list-of-democrat-senators-who-filibustered-gwbs-final-pick-for-scotus/
I don't think that author understands who hypocrisy works. "Any" != one dude, especially when GWB got an appointment.
Post by: ednksu on February 18, 2016, 12:38:50 PM
The gamble itself is unconstitutional. The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point." The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*.of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.
Oh this must be one of those Living Constitution things as opposed to, you know, what the Constitution actually says. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to confirm or even vote on a nominee. Maybe it's in one of those penumbras.
By the way, I know this discussion is probably confusing to somebody who thought "Living Constitution" meant Anendments.
I'll be sure to jerk off a bunch of posts when you want technical instead of colloquial in the future. By the way, you still didn't deal with any substantive issues in my posts. I'll take this as your typical bitch made tap out.
Post by: _33 on February 18, 2016, 12:46:38 PM
If the political situations were reversed everyone on this board would have the exact opposite opinions as they have now. :lol:
Politics. :lol:
Not everyone :D
ALMOST THOUGH PROBABLY
Post by: slobber on February 18, 2016, 01:21:50 PM
Moderate dobber would not change his opinion either.If the political situations were reversed everyone on this board would have the exact opposite opinions as they have now. :lol:
Politics. :lol:
Not everyone :D
ALMOST THOUGH PROBABLY
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2016, 02:19:11 PM
The gamble itself is unconstitutional. The document says the various bodies need to nominate and confirm with no clause "unless it's close enough to an election year to make a political point." The good functioning of the court and government requires the seat be filled in a timely manner, just as it has for the last 227 years*.of course both parties have the right to use their distinct powers.
Agreed.if they were normal, rational actors they would settle on a compromise candidate and the govt would function as intended. it doesn't make sense for either side to insist on an extremist of their own side, at the risk of an extremist of the other side (and at the added cost of a prolonged battle over the appointment).
Please explain your definition of "compromise pick" and how that would be better for conservatives than taking a gamble on the 2016 election.
Right now the 'pubs can make the president pick a very moderate candidate.
If the dems win the election and take the senate, a much more liberal candidate will be nominated
If the 'pubs win the presidency and hold the senate, a much more conservative candidate will be nominated.
Sorry - labels like "much more moderate" don't mean anything. And that's the point. I want to know how exactly this "moderate" justice is going to be better than this "liberal" justice of the GOP loses their gamble. I don't see it.
Oh this must be one of those Living Constitution things as opposed to, you know, what the Constitution actually says. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to confirm or even vote on a nominee. Maybe it's in one of those penumbras.
By the way, I know this discussion is probably confusing to somebody who thought "Living Constitution" meant Anendments.
I'll be sure to jerk off a bunch of posts when you want technical instead of colloquial in the future. By the way, you still didn't deal with any substantive issues in my posts. I'll take this as your typical bitch made tap out.
:lol: Everybody got that?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2016, 03:25:13 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 18, 2016, 10:03:39 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 18, 2016, 10:14:30 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
Post by: 8manpick on February 19, 2016, 07:20:22 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2016, 08:45:05 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
I think we've probably had a few closet atheists as president, don't you? You just want a self-professed atheist?
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 19, 2016, 08:57:47 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
If it's any consolation, I don't think Obama means it when he says 'God bless America'.
Post by: CNS on February 19, 2016, 09:20:47 AM
I did hear a podcast this week talking about how atheists and agnostics are growing faster than any religious group in our county and how given that stat, and the size of their contingent, it is interesting how politics seem to be getting more and more religious in what is discussed and how often god or jesus are referenced. For instance: evidently Reagan started the whole thing about ending all speeches with "god bless America". I guess that wasn't a thing before him in the '80's. Now everyone does it. Seems weird to me that something like that started so recently.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 19, 2016, 09:25:26 AM
I really don't give a crap. I would just love for the entirety of the field to leave it out of the political race. It's a private thing, practice it in private. I feel the same way about politicians infidelity as well, btw.
I did hear a podcast this week talking about how atheists and agnostics are growing faster than any religious group in our county and how given that stat, and the size of their contingent, it is interesting how politics seem to be getting more and more religious in what is discussed and how often god or jesus are referenced. For instance: evidently Reagan started the whole thing about ending all speeches with "god bless America". I guess that wasn't a thing before him in the '80's. Now everyone does it. Seems weird to me that something like that started so recently.
All of the "Under God", "In God We Trust", etc. stuff came about after WW2. It's anti-communist propaganda, mostly.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 19, 2016, 10:20:40 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
If it's any consolation, I don't think Obama means it when he says 'God bless America'.
$10 says you freaked out about Jeremiah Wright
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2016, 10:21:12 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
I think we've probably had a few closet atheists as president, don't you? You just want a self-professed atheist?
Yes, it's hard to imagine people bright enough to be on the Supreme Court actually believing in fairy tales
Post by: catastrophe on February 19, 2016, 10:34:03 AM
There's also the Declaration of Independence ("endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, etc.").
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 10:45:31 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
I think we've probably had a few closet atheists as president, don't you? You just want a self-professed atheist?
Absolutely, it's a sign of tolerance and progress for society.
Post by: chuckjames on February 19, 2016, 05:55:58 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
I think we've probably had a few closet atheists as president, don't you? You just want a self-professed atheist?
Yes, it's hard to imagine people bright enough to be on the Supreme Court actually believing in fairy tales
I've never understood this mindset, if someone wants to take comfort in a faith, why do you care?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2016, 06:04:46 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 06:11:00 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
I think we've probably had a few closet atheists as president, don't you? You just want a self-professed atheist?
Yes, it's hard to imagine people bright enough to be on the Supreme Court actually believing in fairy tales
I've never understood this mindset, if someone wants to take comfort in a faith, why do you care?
The mindset is that supreme court justices should be rational thinkers, and blind faith is not rational. With someone on the street, it's generally not an issue, but it makes sense to care when the supreme court is involved.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 19, 2016, 06:15:24 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2016, 06:25:39 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-courtYES!
Please put one in the White House someday, too.
I think we've probably had a few closet atheists as president, don't you? You just want a self-professed atheist?
Yes, it's hard to imagine people bright enough to be on the Supreme Court actually believing in fairy tales
I've never understood this mindset, if someone wants to take comfort in a faith, why do you care?
The mindset is that supreme court justices should be rational thinkers, and blind faith is not rational. With someone on the street, it's generally not an issue, but it makes sense to care when the supreme court is involved.
Huh. Is there a difference bw "blind faith" and just plain ol "faith?" And are you suggesting that religious people are not, by definition, rational? Huh.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 19, 2016, 06:27:33 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 06:37:11 PM
And are you suggesting that religious people are not, by definition, rational? Huh.
Absolutely. Believing something that you know can never proven is irrational on some level. Obviously there are different levels of irrationality, and I don't think the presence of religious beliefs should necessarily disqualify someone from serving on the supreme court. But I totally understand the mindset of someone who thinks it should.
Here's an interesting read:
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/16/222907684/can-faith-ever-be-rational
Post by: The Big Train on February 19, 2016, 07:26:33 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2016, 07:28:54 PM
Libtards gonna libtard
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 07:35:11 PM
Notwithstanding their sophomoric idea of what religion is, it's hilariously ironic for a group of people with unyielding blind faith in the altruism of government to criticize and question the rationale of someone who believes in a higher power.
Libtards gonna libtard
I think you're one of those closet atheists
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 07:38:58 PM
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2016, 07:39:21 PM
Post by: chum1 on February 19, 2016, 07:43:45 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2016, 07:44:24 PM
Also lol at thinking I have blind faith in government
You compared religion to fairy tales. You deserved that.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2016, 07:44:41 PM
Also lol at thinking I have blind faith in government
it's one of my favorite regresocon talking points
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 07:48:08 PM
I didn't do that, atheist.Also lol at thinking I have blind faith in government
You compared religion to fairy tales. You deserved that.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 19, 2016, 07:49:36 PM
Also lol at thinking I have blind faith in government
You compared religion to fairy tales. You deserved that.
Not a fairytale but when analyzed in a context of the fanciful events some (most) religions are based on it shows you can be convinced of something that is utterly impossible.
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 07:50:59 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2016, 08:25:35 PM
Post by: The Big Train on February 19, 2016, 08:26:41 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2016, 08:27:41 PM
For those who think Christianity and the divinity of Christ are irrational, I would invite you to try reading a little about the early spread of Christianity. Jesus's apostles went through some really serious crap during their ministry. Imprisonment, torture, starvation, crucifixion. And despite all that, none of them changed their story. Not one. Now a rational person might think "huh, that's pretty odd. Surely if it was all a scam, someone would have fes'd up after all that." Nope. Shouldn't a scam have withered away shortly after Jesus's death? Instead it spread. And peacefully for centuries - not at the point of a sword. Don't you think that's a little strange for a scam?
all the other religions are scams tho right
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 08:39:28 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2016, 08:41:32 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2016, 09:09:28 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 19, 2016, 09:12:25 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 09:29:31 PM
Post by: steve dave on February 19, 2016, 09:30:11 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 19, 2016, 11:08:38 PM
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 12:04:19 AM
I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.
The first depends on the second in this scenario. So if he is almighty, why does he need the 2nd to happen first?
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 12:05:59 AM
I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.
The first depends on the second in this scenario. So if he is almighty, why does he need the 2nd to happen first?
Also to follow up, why would he care about humans on earth if he created all of existence? Especially if they sinned basically right after they were created in a perfect image of him?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 20, 2016, 12:56:45 AM
Lol @ resident ProgLibs
Post by: catastrophe on February 20, 2016, 01:43:26 AM
I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.
The first depends on the second in this scenario. So if he is almighty, why does he need the 2nd to happen first?
Also to follow up, why would he care about humans on earth if he created all of existence? Especially if they sinned basically right after they were created in a perfect image of him?
Do you really think anyone who believed in God would presume to know the answer to that question?
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 01:46:08 AM
I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.Really? I think you know which one is a bigger load of crap.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 01:48:11 AM
We don't have blind faith in government but we really don't mind at all when government gets larger and controls more and more . . . But honest, we don't have blind faith in government, we want too be very clear in that . . .I think the nsa should be abolished and the CIA and military budgets should be cut in half (or more) because I don't trust them or elected officials charged with overseeing them.
Lol @ resident ProgLibs
Post by: gatoveintisiete on February 20, 2016, 01:49:59 AM
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 07:35:06 AM
I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.
The first depends on the second in this scenario. So if he is almighty, why does he need the 2nd to happen first?
Also to follow up, why would he care about humans on earth if he created all of existence? Especially if they sinned basically right after they were created in a perfect image of him?
Do you really think anyone who believed in God would presume to know the answer to that question?
They absolutely 'know' the answer to that question. It's because they are special and of all of the universe the 'he' created, earth is the only place he cares about.
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 07:37:15 AM
Do you think there is life anywhere else in the universe?
IMO it's foolish to think there isn't. Statistics alone prove there is.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 20, 2016, 07:57:26 AM
We don't have blind faith in government but we really don't mind at all when g :comehere:overnment gets larger and controls more and more . . . But honest, we don't have blind faith in government, we want too be very clear in that . . .I think the nsa should be abolished and the CIA and military budgets should be cut in half (or more) because I don't trust them or elected officials charged with overseeing them.
Lol @ resident ProgLibs
:lol: blind faith, except for military stuff
So libtarded
Post by: CNS on February 20, 2016, 08:01:46 AM
For those who think Christianity and the divinity of Christ are irrational, I would invite you to try reading a little about the early spread of Christianity. Jesus's apostles went through some really serious crap during their ministry. Imprisonment, torture, starvation, crucifixion. And despite all that, none of them changed their story. Not one. Now a rational person might think "huh, that's pretty odd. Surely if it was all a scam, someone would have fes'd up after all that." Nope. Shouldn't a scam have withered away shortly after Jesus's death? Instead it spread. And peacefully for centuries - not at the point of a sword. Don't you think that's a little strange for a scam?If no one talks, everyone walks, Snitches get stiches, etc.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2016, 08:18:41 AM
We don't have blind faith in government but we really don't mind at all when government gets larger and controls more and more . . . But honest, we don't have blind faith in government, we want too be very clear in that . . .I think the nsa should be abolished and the CIA and military budgets should be cut in half (or more) because I don't trust them or elected officials charged with overseeing them.
Lol @ resident ProgLibs
This seems disingenuous. Unless you're a proponent of relying on blind faith to tell us that these organizations do absolutely nothing of value.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 20, 2016, 08:25:51 AM
Post by: gatoveintisiete on February 20, 2016, 08:57:48 AM
Do you think there is life anywhere else in the universe?
IMO it's foolish to think there isn't. Statistics alone prove there is.
do they look like flying spaghetti monsters? How are you both so sure there is no God and there is other life out there? I believe both exist.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 09:13:46 AM
I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.Really? I think you know which one is a bigger load of crap.
I really don't, but the notion of an explosion creating life is counterintuitive to everything else science teaches us and common sense while the other is some dude a few hundred years ago telling an elaborate lie that stuck.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 09:37:03 AM
Good grief, MiR. I'm going to disengage you on this topic because it seems like you're being willfully ignorant.I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.Really? I think you know which one is a bigger load of crap.
I really don't, but the notion of an explosion creating life is counterintuitive to everything else science teaches us and common sense while the other is some dude a few hundred years ago telling an elaborate lie that stuck.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 09:44:29 AM
Good grief, MiR. I'm going to disengage you on this topic because it seems like you're being willfully ignorant.I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.Really? I think you know which one is a bigger load of crap.
I really don't, but the notion of an explosion creating life is counterintuitive to everything else science teaches us and common sense while the other is some dude a few hundred years ago telling an elaborate lie that stuck.
I'm being willfully ignorant because I won't acknowledge the legitimacy of one widely held odd belief over another? I do think the story of creation as is taught in the bible is a laughable farce. However, even if you believe the big bang to be true it still would involve some form of creation before that occurred. I believe in creation just not the widely taught biblical version.
Post by: steve dave on February 20, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 09:48:59 AM
I'm being willfully ignorant because I won't acknowledge the legitimacy of one widely held odd belief over another?
With these two "beliefs"? Yes, you are.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 09:50:30 AM
Who created the creator?
Good ass question :dunno: :confused:
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 09:52:17 AM
Do you think there is life anywhere else in the universe?
IMO it's foolish to think there isn't. Statistics alone prove there is.
do they look like flying spaghetti monsters? How are you both so sure there is no God and there is other life out there? I believe both exist.
What makes life here the standard to look like? Also are your spaghetti monsters single or multi-cellular organisms?
There are way too many reasons to list why there is no God. I chose to think and reason why there can't be a god, in any form, not just Christianity. When you actually think for yourself and not belief a text that was written without a full grasp of the universe, you understand the truth.
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 09:53:45 AM
Who created the creator?
Good ass question :dunno: :confused:
String theory
Post by: mocat on February 20, 2016, 09:54:19 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 09:54:40 AM
I'm being willfully ignorant because I won't acknowledge the legitimacy of one widely held odd belief over another?
With these two "beliefs"? Yes, you are.
Do you want to explain to me what I'm missing or are we going to go with "you're ignorant so I quit" without offering up any explanation at all?
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 10:02:13 AM
We don't have blind faith in government but we really don't mind at all when government gets larger and controls more and more . . . But honest, we don't have blind faith in government, we want too be very clear in that . . .I think the nsa should be abolished and the CIA and military budgets should be cut in half (or more) because I don't trust them or elected officials charged with overseeing them.
Lol @ resident ProgLibs
This seems disingenuous. Unless you're a proponent of relying on blind faith to tell us that these organizations do absolutely nothing of value.
I believe those organizations do things of value. I just don't think they do enough good to justify their budgets and abuses and misuses of power.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 10:03:16 AM
I'm being willfully ignorant because I won't acknowledge the legitimacy of one widely held odd belief over another?
With these two "beliefs"? Yes, you are.
Do you want to explain to me what I'm missing or are we going to go with "you're ignorant so I quit" without offering up any explanation at all?
Yes, I'm going to quit here.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 10:05:31 AM
I'm being willfully ignorant because I won't acknowledge the legitimacy of one widely held odd belief over another?
With these two "beliefs"? Yes, you are.
Do you want to explain to me what I'm missing or are we going to go with "you're ignorant so I quit" without offering up any explanation at all?
Yes, I'm going to quit here.
I think you're making an assumption here you shouldn't make but whatever.
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2016, 10:23:50 AM
We don't have blind faith in government but we really don't mind at all when government gets larger and controls more and more . . . But honest, we don't have blind faith in government, we want too be very clear in that . . .I think the nsa should be abolished and the CIA and military budgets should be cut in half (or more) because I don't trust them or elected officials charged with overseeing them.
Lol @ resident ProgLibs
This seems disingenuous. Unless you're a proponent of relying on blind faith to tell us that these organizations do absolutely nothing of value.
I believe those organizations do things of value. I just don't think they do enough good to justify their budgets and abuses and misuses of power.
What is your belief based on?
I believe that the justifications/abuses/misuses of those organizations are comparable to those for any typical organization. This belief is based on the assumption that similar things behave in similar ways and no particular substantive evidence to the contrary. Like, no news story on these organiztions that I've seen should be enough to trump this belief.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 10:30:13 AM
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2016, 10:46:35 AM
My belief is based on the history of those organizations. And I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think there were misuses of power in other government organizations, although I think abuses of power in the NSA would generally be more damaging to society than abuse of power in the department of transportation, for example. The ones I mentioned were just off the top of my head.
I assume that the harm is comparable, too.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 10:49:33 AM
Based on what?My belief is based on the history of those organizations. And I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think there were misuses of power in other government organizations, although I think abuses of power in the NSA would generally be more damaging to society than abuse of power in the department of transportation, for example. The ones I mentioned were just off the top of my head.
I assume that the harm is comparable, too.
Post by: Kat Kid on February 20, 2016, 10:52:27 AM
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2016, 11:01:36 AM
Based on what?My belief is based on the history of those organizations. And I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think there were misuses of power in other government organizations, although I think abuses of power in the NSA would generally be more damaging to society than abuse of power in the department of transportation, for example. The ones I mentioned were just off the top of my head.
I assume that the harm is comparable, too.
Same as before. There are lots of different ways to directly or indirectly harm people. Some are just more tabloid worthy than others.
Post by: catastrophe on February 20, 2016, 11:07:41 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 11:36:35 AM
Anyone who thinks they understand the origin of the universe (whether religious, agnostic, or atheist) is probably not worth engaging with.
I won't go as far as saying that they shouldn't be engaged in conversation with but their assurance is pretty laughable and they're almost always quick to lampoon the beliefs of others.
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 11:40:18 AM
Anyone who thinks they understand the origin of the universe (whether religious, agnostic, or atheist) is probably not worth engaging with.
So instead of engaging with thoughtful, intelligent people you should just engage with other idiots? Got it
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 11:43:33 AM
Anyone who thinks they understand the origin of the universe (whether religious, agnostic, or atheist) is probably not worth engaging with.
So instead of engaging with thoughtful, intelligent people you should just engage with other idiots? Got it
People who are sure of our origins tend to be very irrational.
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 11:53:27 AM
Anyone who thinks they understand the origin of the universe (whether religious, agnostic, or atheist) is probably not worth engaging with.
So instead of engaging with thoughtful, intelligent people you should just engage with other idiots? Got it
People who are sure of our origins tend to be very irrational.
I agree with that. However there are a lot who have done their own research and made decisions about it themselves. They tend to be very open
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 11:57:29 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 20, 2016, 12:06:34 PM
But, but, but it's just a bunch of fairy tales!!!
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 12:28:44 PM
This is particularly funny because the atheists almost certainly don't understand what the big bang theory is.Classic closeted atheist protesting too much. Come out of the atheist closet, fsd. Your parents will probably still love you.
But, but, but it's just a bunch of fairy tales!!!
Post by: sys on February 20, 2016, 12:47:13 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 12:51:11 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 12:54:37 PM
the big bang/expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of life, so mir is correct in that sense.
Am I wrong about people using this "conventional wisdom" as a means of creation? If I am wrong about this what do big bangers attribute the origin of life to? Can you believe in elements of both big bang and biblical creation?
Post by: sys on February 20, 2016, 01:00:06 PM
the big bang/expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of life, so mir is correct in that sense.
Am I wrong about people using this "conventional wisdom" as a means of creation? If I am wrong about this what do big bangers attribute the origin of life to? Can you believe in elements of both big bang and biblical creation?
i don't pay a ton of attention to what people believe about those topics or how they reconcile conflicting beliefs. i also know very little about physics (post newton or so). so i'm the wrong person for this discussion beyond pointing out that the origin of life on earth is not the same thing, or even related to in any way to the expansion of the universe.
i guess maybe the expansion of the universe may have been a necessary but insufficient condition for life to originate, i really don't know.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 20, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
This is particularly funny because the atheists almost certainly don't understand what the big bang theory is.Classic closeted atheist protesting too much. Come out of the atheist closet, fsd. Your parents will probably still love you.
But, but, but it's just a bunch of fairy tales!!!
Don't reduce religion to a series of Sunday school stories, and then get all butthurt when everyone tells you you're wrong.
Weird meltdown
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 01:05:06 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 01:08:32 PM
the big bang/expansion of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of life, so mir is correct in that sense.
Am I wrong about people using this "conventional wisdom" as a means of creation? If I am wrong about this what do big bangers attribute the origin of life to? Can you believe in elements of both big bang and biblical creation?
i don't pay a ton of attention to what people believe about those topics or how they reconcile conflicting beliefs. i also know very little about physics (post newton or so). so i'm the wrong person for this discussion beyond pointing out that the origin of life on earth is not the same thing, or even related to in any way to the expansion of the universe.
i guess maybe the expansion of the universe may have been a necessary but insufficient condition for life to originate, i really don't know.
They are related in the sense that the big bang/universe expansion ultimately led to the conditions on earth that allowed life to originate (in theory). But yes, obviously the giant explosion did not instantly create life.
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 01:30:24 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:33:18 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
No, what I need is for you to convince me why I should believe either seemingly implausible occurrence and you haven't even come close to that. You tell me that the seven day creation story is clearly ridiculous but refuse to engage me when I say that an explosion creating life is just as ridiculous, to me. sys kinda touched on it when he said I might be mistaken about what big bangers believe but then it seems your reply to him confirms that you believe that an explosion managed to create instead of destroy.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:38:08 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 20, 2016, 01:47:46 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 01:53:23 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 02:03:50 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
You obviously don't follow this very closely. They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 02:07:41 PM
In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 02:34:20 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
You obviously don't follow this very closely. They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.
I would love a link, it sucks not having something to believe in. Before you provide that link I'm looking for proof that the big bang created the universe but more importantly, life as we know it on this universe.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 02:38:08 PM
In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?
More plausible, yes. For example, I think I could get to the place where I can be convinced that the big bang created our universe, I think I'm pretty close to that already. However, I will need incredibly strong evidence to believe that the big bang as an explanation for life as we know it.
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2016, 02:38:40 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 20, 2016, 02:40:02 PM
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2016, 02:42:44 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
You obviously don't follow this very closely. They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.
I would love a link, it sucks not having something to believe in. Before you provide that link I'm looking for proof that the big bang created the universe but more importantly, life as we know it on this universe.
All life was just created by a chemical process that started with amino acids. Without the physical universe that process wouldn't be able to happen. Believing in something higher can help some people, but not everyone needs that comfort.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/lhc-creates-liquid-from-big-bang
Post by: gatoveintisiete on February 20, 2016, 02:46:32 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
Mir, I agree with you, for the first time ever I think... :cheers:
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 02:48:14 PM
In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?
More plausible, yes. For example, I think I could get to the place where I can be convinced that the big bang created our universe, I think I'm pretty close to that already. However, I will need incredibly strong evidence to believe that the big bang as an explanation for life as we know it.
Well, just keep in mind that there were a few billion years and a shitload of randomness between the theoretical big bang and creation of earth and the solar system, and then even more to get from the creation of the solar system to the creation of life on earth. (Theoretically.) It seems like you're ignoring everything that happened over that time and just going straight from the big bang to creation of life.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 02:52:57 PM
What is a big banger?
One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?
Post by: chum1 on February 20, 2016, 02:53:50 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 03:00:35 PM
The explosion itself didn't spark life. No one is saying it did
I've asked about this distinction at least four different times and you're the first person to not completely ignore it. Now that we've got that out of the way I'd like to know how you believe life started and how it's maintained. What's the alternative to creationism? I was always under the impression that it was the big bang theory and I thought I made that clear earlier.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 03:06:18 PM
In your mind, could the presence of scientific evidence supporting one theory make it make it more plausible than a theory with no evidence if neither can be replicated?You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
Or are all theories that can't be replicated equally implausible?
More plausible, yes. For example, I think I could get to the place where I can be convinced that the big bang created our universe, I think I'm pretty close to that already. However, I will need incredibly strong evidence to believe that the big bang as an explanation for life as we know it.
Well, just keep in mind that there were a few billion years and a shitload of randomness between the theoretical big bang and creation of earth and the solar system, and then even more to get from the creation of the solar system to the creation of life on earth. (Theoretically.) It seems like you're ignoring everything that happened over that time and just going straight from the big bang to creation of life.
I'm not ignoring anything, you're assuming that. My juxtaposing of the big bang and seven day creationism should have led you to believe that I was unaware of an alternative. Well that and me telling you specifically that your posting is leading me to believe that you think the big bang created life.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 20, 2016, 03:08:56 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 03:10:49 PM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/scalia-commencement-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/
Quote
and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.:dubious:
Quote
Teaching children creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse and should not be tolerated.:dubious:
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 03:22:50 PM
You can think that the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation fairy tale without claiming to be entirely sure of the origins of the universe.
I asked you more than once for your explanation and you refused to even entertain the notion of doing so. Nothing about that says rational.
You seriously need me to explain why the big bang theory is more plausible than the seven day creation story? For starters, one is based on recorded observations and the other is not. Actually, that should be all you need. The fact that both contain some element of mystery does not make them equally plausible.
Big Bang theory has 1 million times the scientific evidence that 7 day creation story has
Any scientific occurrence that cannot be replicated on any scale whatsoever requires just as big of a leap of faith as believing in the loch ness monster.
Holy crap no MIR. Cmon
Obviously a little bit of hyperbole but you're asking someone you believe something that no one has ever seen or can even replicate on the smallest of scales. To act so superior to someone else believing something else that cannot reasonably be proven is absurd.
You obviously don't follow this very closely. They replicate conditions billionths of seconds after the Big Bang all the time at the LHC. So yeah, we can and do replicate that scientific evidence.
I would love a link, it sucks not having something to believe in. Before you provide that link I'm looking for proof that the big bang created the universe but more importantly, life as we know it on this universe.
All life was just created by a chemical process that started with amino acids. Without the physical universe that process wouldn't be able to happen. Believing in something higher can help some people, but not everyone needs that comfort.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/lhc-creates-liquid-from-big-bang
Thanks for this I missed it the first time. That is interesting info and put in a concise, easy to understand way. I'm standing outside right now. I'm looking at snow, grass, trees, a river, people, and a dog. I simply cannot wrap my hands around colliding protons as an explanation for the diversity of life right in front of my face right now, that obviously gets overwhelming scaling this to the entire globe. If we really want to open the box we can discuss how or why some naturally occurring beings seem to evolve and others don't. I guess what I'm saying is there is definitely a limit to what science can reasonably explain.
Post by: catastrophe on February 20, 2016, 03:24:52 PM
Anyone who thinks they understand the origin of the universe (whether religious, agnostic, or atheist) is probably not worth engaging with.
So instead of engaging with thoughtful, intelligent people you should just engage with other idiots? Got it
My point is that anyone who is completely confident we have figured out the answers to these questions is a deadly combination of ignorance and pride (not thoughtful and intelligent).
So many people that quickly dismiss creationism in favor of "science" like the Big Bang and evolution seem to completely miss that the scientific method is primarily a means of eliminating the impossible as opposed to arriving at unassailable truth. It might not be blind faith, but it does require faith in something to believe in just about any scientific theory. Most of what we claim to know about the universe is based on unconfirmed inferences rather than direct observation.
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2016, 03:32:39 PM
Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase. I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger?What is a big banger?
One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?
I ask because when i hear big bang i am thinking of it from a physics pov.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 03:38:43 PM
Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase. I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger?What is a big banger?
One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?
I ask because when i hear big bang i am thinking of it from a physics pov.
In this context yes, but I believe we've moved beyond that in the course of this conversation and the distinction should be drawn at what you believe the scale of influence the big bang had on the creation of life as we know it. From a physics prospective the big bang is much less nebulous.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 20, 2016, 03:39:44 PM
Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase. I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger?What is a big banger?
One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?
I ask because when i hear big bang i am thinking of it from a physics pov.
I think it's a cutesie term meant to minimize the belief. Like "birther" or "truther"
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 03:46:18 PM
Well i honestly have no idea what you meant by that phrase. I mean they're is overwhelming evidence the big bang happened, so does acknowledging that evidence make one a big banger?What is a big banger?
One who believes in the big bang theory I guess, makes more sense in my head than big bangest. Do I need to qualify that on every post?
I ask because when i hear big bang i am thinking of it from a physics pov.
I think it's a cutesie term meant to minimize the belief. Like "birther" or "truther"
Nope. Was my explanation not sufficient enough for you?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 20, 2016, 03:49:16 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 20, 2016, 04:09:35 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 04:13:06 PM
Just use the term scientist
You have to be a scientist to believe in the big bang? Should I call creationists clergy instead?
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2016, 05:08:06 PM
Thanks for this I missed it the first time. That is interesting info and put in a concise, easy to understand way. I'm standing outside right now. I'm looking at snow, grass, trees, a river, people, and a dog. I simply cannot wrap my hands around colliding protons as an explanation for the diversity of life right in front of my face right now, that obviously gets overwhelming scaling this to the entire globe. If we really want to open the box we can discuss how or why some naturally occurring beings seem to evolve and others don't. I guess what I'm saying is there is definitely a limit to what science can reasonably explain.
^Everything you posted here perfectly reasonable.
I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.
^This isn't
So I think you're making progress.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 20, 2016, 08:14:07 PM
Thanks for this I missed it the first time. That is interesting info and put in a concise, easy to understand way. I'm standing outside right now. I'm looking at snow, grass, trees, a river, people, and a dog. I simply cannot wrap my hands around colliding protons as an explanation for the diversity of life right in front of my face right now, that obviously gets overwhelming scaling this to the entire globe. If we really want to open the box we can discuss how or why some naturally occurring beings seem to evolve and others don't. I guess what I'm saying is there is definitely a limit to what science can reasonably explain.
^Everything you posted here perfectly reasonable.I don't know which story is a bigger load of crap; a dude taking 6 days to create our entire existence then taking a day to chill by the pool, or a grand explosion actually creating instead of destroying life.
^This isn't
So I think you're making progress.
It's amazing what the acquisition of additional information can do to an open mind. Thankfully TBT, sys, and chingon felt the need to engage so thanks to them.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 20, 2016, 09:16:15 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 20, 2016, 09:24:38 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 20, 2016, 09:27:26 PM
I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.
:thumbs:
Post by: Kat Kid on February 20, 2016, 09:34:41 PM
I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.
what a word salad!
celebrate the acknowledgement of ignorance, willingness to ask questions/consider/learn
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 21, 2016, 08:07:10 AM
I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.
what a word salad!
celebrate the acknowledgement of ignorance, willingness to ask questions/consider/learn
your a word salad.
Post by: michigancat on February 21, 2016, 10:17:10 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 21, 2016, 04:10:54 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 22, 2016, 09:32:17 AM
Post by: DQ12 on February 22, 2016, 09:45:46 AM
Yes! I agree. If you're wrong about something, notice it and be happy about it. You just sharpened your intellectual knife.I think celebrating the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance on a subject (not pejorative or condescending, the actual definition) and being willing to ask questions is a HIGHLY underrated attribute in people of all ages.
what a word salad!
celebrate the acknowledgement of ignorance, willingness to ask questions/consider/learn
It really is a great thing to notice.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 22, 2016, 09:44:30 PM
A little backstory is necessary. For years, Kansas and a few other states have been struggling to enforce proof of citizenship laws for voting. They have been stymied because the federal forms do not require proof of citizenship, and the courts won't allow them to require use of their own state forms in lieu of federal forms.
Except that something crazy recently happened - the new commissioner of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission said "hey, no problem, we can revise the form for your states to include the poof of citizenship requirement." Problem solved. So naturally, left wing groups just filed a lawsuit in federal court to enjoin the EAC's action from going into effect.
Who represents the EAC? It's supposed to be the Department of Justice. Except the DOJ decided "nah, we're not going to oppose the motion for injunction." Because remember, making it as easy as possible for illegals to vote is of paramount concern in this banana republic.
Enter Judge Richard Leon, who was - let's just say - a bit skeptical of the DOJ's actions....
Quote
A federal judge sounded skeptical Monday about a request from voting and civil rights' groups to block a federal official's decision to embrace requirements in three states that new voters submit proof that they're U.S. citizens.
...
While the judge said he would not rule until Tuesday on the temporary restraining order requested by the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, and voter registration organization Project Vote, the thrust of his questions to several lawyers hinted that he was inclined against granting the order.
...
The court hearing Monday began with some drama as Leon read aloud a letter from one commissioner and Newby noting that the Justice Department declined to defend Newby's action and advised the panel that it does not have authority under federal law to retain its own counsel.
Leon called "unprecedented" the Justice Department's decision to agree to a preliminary injunction blocking a federal official's decision, a stance POLITICO highlighted before Monday's hearing.
"I've never heard of it in all my years as a lawyer," the judge said.
Leon also criticized the government for taking an incomplete position in the case, conceding that a preliminary injunction was appropriate but not addressing issues about what decisions the elections panel must make itself and which the panel's director could make on his or her own.
"This is a very unusual way for the Federal Programs Branch to litigate," the judge said.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/voting-rights-citizenship-proof-219642 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/voting-rights-citizenship-proof-219642)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 22, 2016, 09:46:54 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2016, 10:02:30 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 22, 2016, 10:12:31 PM
meh
Post by: mocat on February 22, 2016, 10:17:15 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2016, 10:19:01 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2016, 07:18:24 AM
The Illegals voting pandemic is such a ksuw thing to invent and get worked up about
Well there has to be some reason the libtards keep getting elected in Kansas. I think he's onto something.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 23, 2016, 08:43:02 AM
Post by: ChiComCat on February 23, 2016, 10:54:24 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/alabama-punishes-all-vote_b_8338940.html
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 23, 2016, 11:36:22 AM
I think passing Voter ID laws and then making it a pain in the ass to get an ID is a pretty big deal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/alabama-punishes-all-vote_b_8338940.html
That story was discussed here when it came out in October 2015. It's stupid. Alabamans can still register to vote and get a free voter ID in every county in the state. Closing DMVs sucks if you need a DL to drive, but it doesn't inconvenience voting that much. You really think you shouldn't have to show a form of ID before voting? :dunno:
Post by: catastrophe on February 23, 2016, 11:54:57 AM
This touches on a pet peeve of mine. Why is Election Day not a holiday? Don't you think voter turnout would be dramatically better if most people were off work? Sure makes more sense to me than Labor Day.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2016, 11:59:32 AM
Post by: mocat on February 23, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 23, 2016, 12:01:45 PM
Turnout would be awful if it was a holiday
Maybe you would need to show some proof you voted to get out of work. Then you would really need to have voter ID laws because people would be faking that they voted just to get out of work.
Post by: catastrophe on February 23, 2016, 12:08:24 PM
Turnout would be awful if it was a holiday
Hey, awful is still better than abysmal.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2016, 12:08:59 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2016, 12:09:40 PM
Turnout would be awful if it was a holiday
Hey, awful is still better than abysmal.
Awful compared to current levels, dumbo
Post by: CNS on February 23, 2016, 12:12:14 PM
Post by: ChiComCat on February 23, 2016, 12:15:59 PM
I think when budget cuts hit, the political party in power will have no problem determining what DMVs need closed first. When a national study has found 10 voter impersonation attempts in the last 15 years, I think it's a waste of money and time. If a voter ID law does pass, I think it should include provisions to ensure people have easier access to an ID.I think passing Voter ID laws and then making it a pain in the ass to get an ID is a pretty big deal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/alabama-punishes-all-vote_b_8338940.html
That story was discussed here when it came out in October 2015. It's stupid. Alabamans can still register to vote and get a free voter ID in every county in the state. Closing DMVs sucks if you need a DL to drive, but it doesn't inconvenience voting that much. You really think you shouldn't have to show a form of ID before voting? :dunno:
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2016, 12:21:54 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 23, 2016, 01:39:05 PM
The holiday thing would only be horrible if it was a friday or monday. hold it on a wednesday and, yeah ppl may drag themselves in late, but It isn't a bad idea.
Election Day is always on Tuesday.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 23, 2016, 02:04:11 PM
If a voter ID law does pass, I think it should include provisions to ensure people have easier access to an ID.
Every voter ID law in effect and under consideration provides a means of obtaining free ID.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 23, 2016, 02:08:04 PM
If a voter ID law does pass, I think it should include provisions to ensure people have easier access to an ID.
Every voter ID law in effect and under consideration provides a means of obtaining free ID.
"free" is not the same as "easily accessible"
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 23, 2016, 02:10:12 PM
Quote
I attended a hearing on Monday afternoon before District of Columbia federal district court Judge Richard J. Leon that was one of the most “extraordinary” federal court hearings I have ever attended, to use Judge Leon’s description of the case. The hearing was over the temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) being sought by the League of Women Voters and a host of other leftist groups to stop the recent decision of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to allow Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, and Arizona to enforce their proof-of-citizenship voter-registration requirement.
This morning, as I predicted would happen in an article on Sunday, the U.S. Justice Department took a dive and filed a pleading in which it not only failed to defend the actions of the EAC, but agreed with the plaintiffs and consented to both a TRO and a PI. Judge Leon called the pleading “unprecedented” and “extraordinary.” He said he had never seen such a document in his entire experience as a lawyer or a judge. He was obviously astonished that the Justice Department was not defending the agency, and it was soon clear he was not going to allow DOJ to just roll over.
The courtroom was so full that Judge Leon was obviously surprised by the size of the audience when he walked into the courtroom, calling it a “traveling roadshow.” In fact, the plaintiffs showed up with over a dozen lawyers. There were so many lawyers (even though only one lawyer was there to argue for the plaintiffs) that, before the hearing started, the clerk asked them to move from the plaintiffs’ table to the gallery.
The judge issued orders just before the hearing started granting the motions of both the State of Kansas and the Public Interest Legal Foundation to intervene in the case in order to defend the EAC’s position. So Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State of Kansas, was given time to argue against the TRO motion, as was Christian Adams of PILF. The judge opened the hearing by reading into the record an astonishing letter he had just received from the chair of the EAC, Christie McCormick. It informed the court that DOJ had told the EAC that it would not defend the agency, and that it would not allow the EAC to hire its own counsel. McCormick informed the judge that she believed DOJ was not fulfilling its duty and obligation to defend the EAC and had a potential conflict of interest.
It was clear that Judge Leon was shocked at what DOJ had done. While he gave the plaintiffs 20 minutes to argue their case, he gave the lawyer from the Federal Programs Branch of DOJ only five minutes because he said that DOJ was obviously on the same side as the plaintiffs. He also said almost immediately that he would not grant a PI without a complete briefing and arguments on the case — despite DOJ wanting to consent to the PI. Judge Leon made clear that there was “no chance at all — zero” that he would do what the plaintiffs and the Justice Department wanted him to do on that issue.
When the DOJ lawyer got up, he was asked very tough questions about DOJ’s actions in this case by Judge Leon, including the potential conflict of interest that I discussed in my Sunday article and which Commissioner McCormick referred to in her letter to the judge. The DOJ lawyer denied that there was a conflict and gave rambling, vague answers that clearly did not satisfy the judge. Leon was obviously annoyed at the lawyer’s inability to answer some of his questions, saying “I gave you the weekend to get ready for this — what have you been doing?”
Judge Leon talked about all of the cases in which the Federal Programs Branch has been involved in his courtroom, and said he had never seen the type of incomplete brief that DOJ had filed in this case. He said that those briefs “usually cover the waterfront” in terms of raising every legal argument to defend an agency. Leon was very dismissive of the DOJ’s position, its behavior, and its failure to mount a defense consistent with its usual practice.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431752/noncitizen-voting-case-doj-rebuked (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431752/noncitizen-voting-case-doj-rebuked)
I can't even believe this. Obama's Department of "Justice" actually told the EAC that the DOJ would not defend the agency, and it was unlawful for the EAC to hire anyone else to defend them.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 23, 2016, 06:38:47 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 24, 2016, 01:21:51 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 24, 2016, 01:28:07 PM
I want to vote with my cell phone
Yeah, why isn't there an app to vote yet? I mean, if Facebook can let me show my anger at a post then why can't I vote on my phone???
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 01:30:04 PM
I want to vote with my cell phone
Yeah, why isn't there an app to vote yet? I mean, if Facebook can let me show my anger at a post then why can't I vote on my phone???
Regresocons will die before they allow citizens an easier path to voting
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 01:46:41 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 01:56:46 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
Post by: CNS on February 24, 2016, 02:06:07 PM
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 02:06:56 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 24, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
Post by: CNS on February 24, 2016, 02:11:41 PM
I think outlawing caucuses would be a nice first step toward improving voter turnout.
There should be some legislation providing an actual structure to the system rather than two private companies(RNC and DNC) doing what they want.
Post by: ChiComCat on February 24, 2016, 02:14:24 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
I think plenty of stupid people vote already. I enjoyed the mail in ballot when I was in Colorado, even if widespread voter fraud got Gardner elected. I was able to sit down with my iPad and do some research on the races I was not fully up to speed with.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:52:50 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:55:04 PM
I think plenty of stupid people vote already.
Yes. But let's not make it worse.
I enjoyed the mail in ballot when I was in Colorado, even if widespread voter fraud got Gardner elected. I was able to sit down with my iPad and do some research on the races I was not fully up to speed with.
So... you're ok with fraud devaluing your vote, as long as it's easier? Tell you what: if it's easier for you, just email your vote to [email protected]. It probably won't count, but as long as it's easier, right?
Post by: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 02:55:38 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 02:58:18 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
Post by: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:00:14 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:01:59 PM
something like 2.5% of the population participated in nevada's pub primary, and they gave trump his largest victory margin to date. so i'm not sure if ksuw should be hanging his hat on limiting voter participation as the means of preserving his preferred ideology.
Uh huh. So you're saying that by making it easier to vote, the number of intelligent, engaged people who will now vote but otherwise would not have ('cause it was just too darned hard to have an ID / drive to a polling location) will equal or exceed the number of morons for whom a canvasser with an iPad will cast their vote for them? Look, I can't prove you're wrong, but I've got enough common sense to know you're wrong.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:04:18 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.
No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.
Post by: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:07:05 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.
No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.
Ok then tell me..in Chant's perfect work who should be able to vote?
Post by: ChiComCat on February 24, 2016, 03:09:47 PM
I think plenty of stupid people vote already.
Yes. But let's not make it worse.I enjoyed the mail in ballot when I was in Colorado, even if widespread voter fraud got Gardner elected. I was able to sit down with my iPad and do some research on the races I was not fully up to speed with.
So... you're ok with fraud devaluing your vote, as long as it's easier? Tell you what: if it's easier for you, just email your vote to [email protected]. It probably won't count, but as long as it's easier, right?
I was joking about the fraud. I think it was you that mentioned a long while back that Colorado would likely have voter fraud by the crafty democrats, meanwhile the democrat was voted out of office for a republican.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 03:13:00 PM
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 03:15:15 PM
Uh huh. So you're saying that by making it easier to vote, the number of intelligent, engaged people who will now vote but otherwise would not have ('cause it was just too darned hard to have an ID / drive to a polling location) will equal or exceed the number of morons for whom a canvasser with an iPad will cast their vote for them? Look, I can't prove you're wrong, but I've got enough common sense to know you're wrong.
i'm saying that we just had an election where 2.5% of the population participated and they overwhelmingly chose a candidate you consider to be stupid. the data (datum, so by all means show me more) simply doesn't support your hypothesis.
Post by: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 03:18:59 PM
Uh huh. So you're saying that by making it easier to vote, the number of intelligent, engaged people who will now vote but otherwise would not have ('cause it was just too darned hard to have an ID / drive to a polling location) will equal or exceed the number of morons for whom a canvasser with an iPad will cast their vote for them? Look, I can't prove you're wrong, but I've got enough common sense to know you're wrong.
i'm saying that we just had an election where 2.5% of the population participated and they overwhelmingly chose a candidate you consider to be stupid. the data (datum, so by all means show me more) simply doesn't support your hypothesis.
maybe he thinks that higher participation would have led to an even larger trump landslide? :dunno:
Post by: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 03:20:31 PM
Post by: CNS on February 24, 2016, 03:21:09 PM
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 03:21:25 PM
maybe he thinks that higher participation would have led to an even larger trump landslide? :dunno:
maybe you've got to get below 1% before the reasoned voters can outnumber the low-infos.
Post by: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 03:23:12 PM
maybe he thinks that higher participation would have led to an even larger trump landslide? :dunno:
maybe you've got to get below 1% before the reasoned voters can outnumber the low-infos.
yeah, perhaps that's it.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 03:23:55 PM
And I mean, I do kind of admire the fact that he comes right out and says he wants to disenfranchise a significant amount of people because of their intelligence rather than hiding behind voter fraud concerns. It's an interesting honesty.
Perceived intelligence based on if the person agrees with his particular favorite candidate
Post by: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:39:15 PM
Uh huh. So you're saying that by making it easier to vote, the number of intelligent, engaged people who will now vote but otherwise would not have ('cause it was just too darned hard to have an ID / drive to a polling location) will equal or exceed the number of morons for whom a canvasser with an iPad will cast their vote for them? Look, I can't prove you're wrong, but I've got enough common sense to know you're wrong.
i'm saying that we just had an election where 2.5% of the population participated and they overwhelmingly chose a candidate you consider to be stupid. the data (datum, so by all means show me more) simply doesn't support your hypothesis.
maybe he thinks that higher participation would have led to an even larger trump landslide? :dunno:
The "data" of who chose to vote in a Nevada primary doesn't seem terribly applicable to the issue of whether making it even easier to vote will result in a dumber electorate.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:40:34 PM
Honestly I think last night really got to Chant, he sees the future of the conservative movement, and his really shook. He is taking his anger out on the American people. Sad!
Don't be stupid. Like most normal people, I was already in bed long before the Nevada results were announced. And my confidence in American intelligence has been shaken for quite some time.
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 03:41:52 PM
The "data" of who chose to vote in a Nevada primary doesn't seem terribly applicable to the issue of whether making it even easier to vote will result in a dumber electorate.
by all accounts, the nevada caucus is about as difficult, confusing and inconvenient an election as we have in the us. and the turnout is ridiculously low. seems like a correlation that is fairly easy to explain.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:42:54 PM
And I mean, I do kind of admire the fact that he comes right out and says he wants to disenfranchise a significant amount of people because of their intelligence rather than hiding behind voter fraud concerns. It's an interesting honesty.
Interesting comment. Two questions:
1. Are we "disenfranchising" 16 year olds?
2. Isn't every lawful voter disenfranchised by voter fraud?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:44:09 PM
Both parties want as few ppl voting as possible.
This is not true. At all.
Post by: puniraptor on February 24, 2016, 03:46:39 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:49:24 PM
Seems like an illegal who goes through the hassle and effort of figuring out and placing a fraudulent vote is probably pretty industrious, engaged, and intelligent. Just the kind of voter we want.
Yes, aside from having broken our laws in a number of ways to cast that vote. But otherwise, you're dead on.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 03:52:53 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 03:57:25 PM
And I mean, I do kind of admire the fact that he comes right out and says he wants to disenfranchise a significant amount of people because of their intelligence rather than hiding behind voter fraud concerns. It's an interesting honesty.
Interesting comment. Two questions:
1. Are we "disenfranchising" 16 year olds?
2. Isn't every lawful voter disenfranchised by voter fraud?
1) Yes
2) Not completely
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 03:57:48 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.
No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.
Ok then tell me..in Chant's perfect work who should be able to vote?
Not sure. We should probably raise the voting age back to at least 21 unless you're serving in the military (which is why we lowered it to 18 in the first place). We could probably stand go a bit higher than that on age. Payment of at least some income tax might also work. Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.
No rule will be fair to everyone. Our current rules aren't fair to everyone. There are plenty of 17yos who are perfectly capable of making an intelligent decision.
Post by: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 04:00:40 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.
No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.
Ok then tell me..in Chant's perfect work who should be able to vote?
Not sure. We should probably raise the voting age back to at least 21 unless you're serving in the military (which is why we lowered it to 18 in the first place). We could probably stand go a bit higher than that on age. Payment of at least some income tax might also work. Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.
No rule will be fair to everyone. Our current rules aren't fair to everyone. There are plenty of 17yos who are perfectly capable of making an intelligent decision.
I would guess the majority of people that voted for Trump pay income tax and have a job to support themselves.
Post by: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 04:01:21 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 04:03:35 PM
I know plenty of stupid people with jobs (I mean, with 4.5 percent unemployment nearly everyone has a job) so that probably doesn't get rid of stupid people either :curse:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 24, 2016, 04:04:58 PM
If we made it easier to vote than it already is, I'm sure that would be a welcome convenience for many voters. But I also think it would further dumb-down the electorate, and weren't we just discussing how the electorate is already too stupid? (It probably also encourages more fraud, but just leave that aside.)
Isnt the whole point of your beloved constitution and this country that men are smart enough to govern themselves?
My beloved constitution? Good grief. Also, the Constitution says nothing, either explicitly or implicitly, about making it easier for the laziest and dumbest members of our society to vote. It's already pretty easy. In fact, there were much stricter limitations on the right to vote when the Constitution was written.
That's not my point. My point is the foundation of this country is based on the fact that man should be self governed. And you're basically saying man is too stupid to be self governed. Which I agree with.
No, I'm not making a point about "man" at all. I am saying that some men (and women) are so stupid and immature that they ought not be voting. There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about that. We already have limitations on voting, and that is not contrary to the Constitution or the vague notion of "self-governance."
So basically if someone doesn't agree with you they shouldn't vote because they are obviously stupid. The disdain you show for your fellow Americans is exactly why Trump is winning FYI.
No, that's absolutely not what I said. At all. But if that's how you interpreted what I said, you probably aren't smart enough that you should be voting.
Ok then tell me..in Chant's perfect work who should be able to vote?
Not sure. We should probably raise the voting age back to at least 21 unless you're serving in the military (which is why we lowered it to 18 in the first place). We could probably stand go a bit higher than that on age. Payment of at least some income tax might also work. Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.
No rule will be fair to everyone. Our current rules aren't fair to everyone. There are plenty of 17yos who are perfectly capable of making an intelligent decision.
I would guess the majority of people that voted for Trump pay income tax and have a job to support themselves.
Yup. As I've already said, no rule is perfect. But that doesn't mean we don't have rules on voting eligibility, or that new rules are somehow anathema.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 24, 2016, 04:06:45 PM
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 04:08:27 PM
Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.
taking the vote from non-working elderly probably would be a good start.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 04:12:38 PM
Basically, I'm contemplating rules that would promote the electorate being composed of more people who work jobs and support themselves. It also goes without saying that you ought to have to prove who you are.
taking the vote from non-working elderly probably would be a good start.
I doubt any of them even know what year it is, just shoved on a bus and pin a note on their chest that says they want to vote for the republican
Post by: Kat Kid on February 24, 2016, 04:17:10 PM
Obama is apparently vetting the Republican governor of Nevada which is maybe the most Obama thing ever in that it is a compromise position that everyone will hate and probably won't work either.
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 04:21:07 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 24, 2016, 04:25:56 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 24, 2016, 04:26:38 PM
Indian-American judge who could replace Scalia worked on controversial cases for business
Post by: Kat Kid on February 24, 2016, 04:27:16 PM
"the obstructionist republicans in congress wouldn't even consider an highly qualified appointee, who also happens to be a republican governor" is a pretty good talking point for clinton.
The entire situation will likely help Republicans until they realize what an amazing deal they are getting and then they capitulate. It will likely have very little effect on the Presidential election other than providing a retroactive excuse for the millionth time about how the Senate was insufficiently obstructionist for the House freedom caucus' taste and how if only the American people could've seen that electing a true conservative like Ted Cruz this all could be avoided.
Post by: catastrophe on February 24, 2016, 04:31:27 PM
Plus, if Obama does nominate a conservative judge hoping to make that talking point and the senate approves, they suddenly seem like the reasonable party AND get a candidate they want.
Post by: michigancat on February 24, 2016, 04:32:38 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-scalia-nominee-indian-american-idUSKCN0VO03V
Indian-American judge who could replace Scalia worked on controversial cases for business
A Kansan!
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 04:33:34 PM
The entire situation will likely help Republicans until they realize what an amazing deal they are getting and then they capitulate. It will likely have very little effect on the Presidential election other than providing a retroactive excuse for the millionth time about how the Senate was insufficiently obstructionist for the House freedom caucus' taste and how if only the American people could've seen that electing a true conservative like Ted Cruz this all could be avoided.
honestly, it could help trump if he gets into a general. would fit neatly into an anti-incumbant/anti-insider push. cruz has tried that angle himself, but the voters don't appear to buy it from him and he has no chance at winning the primary anyways.
Post by: sys on February 24, 2016, 04:33:56 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-scalia-nominee-indian-american-idUSKCN0VO03V
Indian-American judge who could replace Scalia worked on controversial cases for business
A Kansan!
that's all i need to know.
Post by: chuckjames on February 24, 2016, 04:36:49 PM
Getting back to the original topic...
Obama is apparently vetting the Republican governor of Nevada which is maybe the most Obama thing ever in that it is a compromise position that everyone will hate and probably won't work either.
I didnt view it as serious, but as a troll by Obama and Reid. We will see tho. If Im a GOP Senators, this is my chance to get as conservative of a justice as possible after Trump wins the nomination* all bets are off.
*Assuming of course, because Rubio could magically start winning at some point.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 25, 2016, 01:26:39 AM
Getting back to the original topic...
Obama is apparently vetting the Republican governor of Nevada which is maybe the most Obama thing ever in that it is a compromise position that everyone will hate and probably won't work either.
I didnt view it as serious, but as a troll by Obama and Reid. We will see tho. If Im a GOP Senators, this is my chance to get as conservative of a justice as possible after Trump wins the nomination* all bets are off.
*Assuming of course, because Rubio could magically start winning at some point.
Why would you think it's a troll? Single payer health care became a health care plan that was nothing but a boondoggle for the insurance industry. Helping the American worker became more business friendly international trade agreements. Closing Gitmo became closing Gitmo on my damn near last day. Prison reform became using executive order to sneak some people out of jail one night. Immigration reform became doing eff all to help immigrants but deporting more immigrants than any other president. Leaving Afghanistan became well, jack crap I guess.
kat kid was right this is the most Obama thing ever. He is worried about making friends and preserving a legacy instead of doing what the eff we elected him to do and the cruel irony is that after nearly eight years he doesn't understand that at best they many of the people he is trying to please will see him as nothing more than a uppity house n-word that needs to be put back in his place.
He's an amazing disappointment and I am sad that Bernie has stopped giving him the pinata treatment he has earned, this stupidity is more of the same.
Post by: ednksu on February 25, 2016, 01:03:59 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 25, 2016, 01:29:56 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2016, 08:33:38 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 26, 2016, 08:43:37 AM
Post by: CNS on February 26, 2016, 08:54:11 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:02:28 AM
LOL x infinity.
Post by: CNS on February 26, 2016, 09:05:24 AM
Yeah, nothing to do with Obama, all Congress.
LOL x infinity.
Congress: "doesn't matter, we won't even review"
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:06:30 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:08:25 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2016, 09:18:49 AM
Post by: CNS on February 26, 2016, 09:20:05 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2016, 09:23:15 AM
Post by: Tobias on February 26, 2016, 09:25:30 AM
Post by: CNS on February 26, 2016, 09:25:49 AM
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 09:47:05 AM
That's almost as funny as Dem's trying to explain The Gift aka Joe War Mongering Obstructionist 1992 Biden.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-seize-biden-quote-which-does-them-no-good
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/22/3752298/no-joe-biden-didnt-say-that-the-senate-should-block-supreme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/
Sorry, once again, facts > you
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:48:43 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:51:44 AM
Pure comedy and great spin.
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 09:52:57 AM
Again, apparently you don't understand the humor in the attempt to explain it away, Whackadoodle.
There is no humor in lies about political records when those lies makes up your entire party's platform or position. It's sad.
Post by: mocat on February 26, 2016, 09:53:51 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:55:24 AM
Hey Mr. President we know you're granted powers to nominate and we'll consider your nomination as long as you float some names and we preapprove them.
Lol.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:56:45 AM
you guys are delusional (not you CNS)
Mo, you define and redefine delusion in your own way, everyday. :thumbsup
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 10:02:23 AM
Again, just pure political grandstanding by Biden.How many times have Dems said they won't even hear names of nominees? History & Fact > you
Hey Mr. President we know you're granted powers to nominate and we'll consider your nomination as long as you float some names and we preapprove them.
Lol.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 10:05:26 AM
You're just too much of a hateful Whackadoodle dumbass to realize it.
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 10:21:56 AM
What you don't get Whackadoodle is that Biden was espousing a back room pre approved (and only considered if pre approved) justice nomination and approval process.If only that was true.....
You're just too much of a hateful Whackadoodle dumbass to realize it.
Tell me again when the Dems said they would meet with no one during a vacancy?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 10:26:50 AM
What you don't get Whackadoodle is that Biden was espousing a back room pre approved (and only considered if pre approved) justice nomination and approval process.If only that was true.....
You're just too much of a hateful Whackadoodle dumbass to realize it.
Tell me again when the Dems said they would meet with no one during a vacancy?
What a weak ass argument. First of all its either been a long time or never since a situation like this occurred (nominee at the end of a two term president) and LOL x a gazillion if you think it wouldn't be the same if the shoe was on the other foot.
It's sad and pathetic that you are lauding a canned, back room, pre approved nomination process, which is exactly what Biden wanted.
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 10:35:07 AM
What you don't get Whackadoodle is that Biden was espousing a back room pre approved (and only considered if pre approved) justice nomination and approval process.If only that was true.....
You're just too much of a hateful Whackadoodle dumbass to realize it.
Tell me again when the Dems said they would meet with no one during a vacancy?
What a weak ass argument. First of all its either been a long time or never since a situation like this occurred (nominee at the end of a two term president) and LOL x a gazillion if you think it wouldn't be the same if the shoe was on the other foot.
It's sad and pathetic that you are lauding a canned, back room, pre approved nomination process, which is exactly what Biden wanted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0I7guLAVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DFqXFgUEi0
Do you ever think to fact check anything or just blast the keyboard and fap about your posts?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 10:37:41 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 10:41:02 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 10:54:21 AM
What a horrifically awful "fact" to use in defense of an equally awful position.
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 10:59:43 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 26, 2016, 11:00:48 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:10:47 AM
The process that got to Kennedy began nearly 18 months before the election of 1988 and over 20 months before a new president took office.
Lol, what a dumbass.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:13:55 AM
Congress not doing their job is A-OK . . . as long as a democrat is in office.
Congress should just be a rubber approval stamp . . . But only if a democrat is president.
Checks and balances are paramount!: But only if a Republican is president.
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 11:21:52 AM
Lol at Whackadoodle thinking he actually had something.
The process that got to Kennedy began nearly 18 months before the election of 1988 and over 20 months before a new president took office.
Lol, what a dumbass.
The fact that you don't understand the Pubs have blocked even the "process" from starting shows how out of depth you are.
But it's great you think a 9 month vacancy is now an 18 month "process", even with 3 nominees. And somehow you think it was 20 months before H. I think you need to pull out a calendar.
flailing
Post by: CNS on February 26, 2016, 11:23:28 AM
Now that we have established the spectrum, let's all notice that dax only thinks one end of it is ridic.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:28:25 AM
Bork was nominated in July of 1987. Calendar says! Over a year before Nov. 8th 1988.
Only a total dumbass would try to say it's the same as what's happening now.
Post by: michigancat on February 26, 2016, 11:29:33 AM
Lol. Powell announced his retirement in June of 1987, the next presidential election wasn't until November 1998.
Bork was nominated in July of 1987. Calendar says! Over a year before Nov. 8th 1988.
Only a total dumbass would try to say it's the same as what's happening now.
tons of people tried to say what happened to Bork was the same as what's happening now.
Post by: mocat on February 26, 2016, 11:30:29 AM
Congress not doing their job is A-OK . . . as long as a democrat is in office.
Congress should just be a rubber approval stamp . . . But only if a democrat is president.
Checks and balances are paramount!: But only if a Republican is president.
this is the stuff _33 makes fun of you guys for
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:33:52 AM
Congress not doing their job is A-OK . . . as long as a democrat is in office.
Congress should just be a rubber approval stamp . . . But only if a democrat is president.
Checks and balances are paramount!: But only if a Republican is president.
this is the stuff _33 makes fun of you guys for
Hey ya know if you come over and meet with us behind closed doors and we preapprove your nominee, then we'll put on a dog and pony show for public consumption.
That's what Biden essentially said in 1992.
Sad that's what you guys want out your elected officials.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:35:01 AM
Lol. Powell announced his retirement in June of 1987, the next presidential election wasn't until November 1998.
Bork was nominated in July of 1987. Calendar says! Over a year before Nov. 8th 1988.
Only a total dumbass would try to say it's the same as what's happening now.
tons of people tried to say what happened to Bork was the same as what's happening now.
Thanks for your input cRusty. Meaningless but noted anyway.
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 11:43:35 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:44:34 AM
See guys, all Obama has to do is appoint a white supremacist who committed sedition against the good ole US of A and Dax will be happy.
Massive tap out.
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 11:46:55 AM
Or he was saying don't even bother submitting a white supremacist who helped attack the fundamental underpinnings of our democratic institutions. SUCH BACKROOM DEALINGS! Oh and who was Biden referring to in '92?Congress not doing their job is A-OK . . . as long as a democrat is in office.
Congress should just be a rubber approval stamp . . . But only if a democrat is president.
Checks and balances are paramount!: But only if a Republican is president.
this is the stuff _33 makes fun of you guys for
Hey ya know if you come over and meet with us behind closed doors and we preapprove your nominee, then we'll put on a dog and pony show for public consumption.
That's what Biden essentially said in 1992.
Sad that's what you guys want out your elected officials.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:48:14 AM
Or he was saying don't even bother submitting a white supremacist who helped attack the fundamental underpinnings of our democratic institutions. SUCH BACKROOM DEALINGS! Oh and who was Biden referring to in '92?Congress not doing their job is A-OK . . . as long as a democrat is in office.
Congress should just be a rubber approval stamp . . . But only if a democrat is president.
Checks and balances are paramount!: But only if a Republican is president.
this is the stuff _33 makes fun of you guys for
Hey ya know if you come over and meet with us behind closed doors and we preapprove your nominee, then we'll put on a dog and pony show for public consumption.
That's what Biden essentially said in 1992.
Sad that's what you guys want out your elected officials.
Yeah, that's it. Lol. #flailing
Oh, so now Biden was saying that because who might have been nominated? #turbospincycle
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 11:49:09 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:54:02 AM
Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it. We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.
Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter.
Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2016, 11:57:25 AM
Lol. Powell announced his retirement in June of 1987, the next presidential election wasn't until November 1998.
Bork was nominated in July of 1987. Calendar says! Over a year before Nov. 8th 1988.
Only a total dumbass would try to say it's the same as what's happening now.
tons of people tried to say what happened to Bork was the same as what's happening now.
Maybe dax and fsd have melted together in my mind, but I'm pretty sure dax was one of those people
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 12:00:47 PM
Lol. Powell announced his retirement in June of 1987, the next presidential election wasn't until November 1998.
Bork was nominated in July of 1987. Calendar says! Over a year before Nov. 8th 1988.
Only a total dumbass would try to say it's the same as what's happening now.
tons of people tried to say what happened to Bork was the same as what's happening now.
Maybe dax and fsd have melted together in my mind, but I'm pretty sure dax was one of those people
Uh, I've never used the analogy of Bork. I don't even recall discussing Bork, maybe I did.
I guess I just understand the difference between 17.5 months before a presidential election and 9 months before a presidential election. #crazy
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 12:06:49 PM
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now. We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees.Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it. We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.
Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter.
Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 12:12:04 PM
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now. We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees.Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it. We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.
Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter.
Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Oh okay, so NOW it's not meeting with nominees in an election year.
Strange your "fact" about this being precedence setting was based entirely on the CONFIRMATION of a nominee in a process that was started in a non election year.
#movinggoalposts
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 12:17:15 PM
Yah Representative Republic!
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 12:17:51 PM
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now. We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees.Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it. We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.
Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter.
Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Oh okay, so NOW it's not meeting with nominees in an election year.
Strange your "fact" about this being precedence setting was based entirely on the CONFIRMATION of a nominee in a process that was started in a non election year.
#movinggoalposts
Sorry, once again, you're battling a strawman entirely of your own creation. We've seen vacancies within this time period before and seen nominations put forth. This, like many things of Pubs pouting with Obama, is an entirely new animal.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 12:22:33 PM
Struggling hard to keep your head above water? No one has said that a non election year is the same as now. We're all noting that we've had situations like this before, and NEVER has congress said no to even meeting nominees.Dude you can't use flailing in this thread, I've claimed it. We haven't backroom dealt an exchange for it.
Only a total Whackadoodle dumbass like you would try to say that a non election year nominee is the exact same thing as an election year nominee and the try respin the respinning of Biden's cryptic obstructionism, and then try to play a straw man like racial implications and then call me a white supremacist supporter.
Never stop Whackadoodle dumbass aka Capt Meltdown
Oh okay, so NOW it's not meeting with nominees in an election year.
Strange your "fact" about this being precedence setting was based entirely on the CONFIRMATION of a nominee in a process that was started in a non election year.
#movinggoalposts
Sorry, once again, you're battling a strawman entirely of your own creation. We've seen vacancies within this time period before and seen nominations put forth. This, like many things of Pubs pouting with Obama, is an entirely new animal.
"These time periods", yeah using that phrase in the loosest and frankly most absurd context available. Not at all surprising.
In these time periods, ya know, give or take six to nine months.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2016, 12:26:34 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 26, 2016, 12:35:33 PM
He's been to the Libtard HOF at least a half dozen times? Just let him splash around and do his own thing.
Post by: chuckjames on February 26, 2016, 12:37:40 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 12:39:40 PM
Just FYI - it really isn't worth arguing with Edna. This is a person so misinformed about his own ideology that he thought constitutional amendments were the essence of a "living constitution."Get Aids
He's been to the Libtard HOF at least a half dozen times? Just let him splash around and do his own thing.
Post by: mocat on February 26, 2016, 12:59:29 PM
The libtards (itt, mocat, edna, cns) have put the cart before the hoese. B.O. has to find someone willing to accept his lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land (how hard could that be - harder than making a functional website? probably not), before the evil bogeyman repubs can undergo it's UNPRECEDENTED and UNFOUNDES confirmation process. So far, B.O. is too incompetent and toxic of a loser face to get that done. To blame congress for that is lol hilarious. But, #thinkprogress
like i always say, bros (and carts) before hoese
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2016, 01:25:58 PM
Post by: CNS on February 26, 2016, 01:30:20 PM
I feel sorry for the first person or two nominated. At best they will be completely ignored by congress and completely mumped over by the pub media crew. At worst, congress will join in on the rough ridin' over.
Post by: mocat on February 26, 2016, 01:35:06 PM
Those not willing are not willing because they don't want to be the center of a clusterfuck inquest made as public as we can stand(and then some). Those who actually fancy themselves worth a nomination would rather wait until there wasn't a hellfire gauntlet to run. Someone who is looking for such a nomination doesn't care if Obama, Cruz, or God himself made the nomination. No one wants to have zero shot because of games that don't even involve their actual viability as a candidate. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a cheerleader dumbass.
I feel sorry for the first person or two nominated. At best they will be completely ignored by congress and completely mumped over by the pub media crew. At worst, congress will join in on the rough ridin' over.
YOU ARE DELUSIONAL AND OBAMA IS TOXIC!
Post by: catastrophe on February 26, 2016, 01:49:08 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2016, 01:50:53 PM
This whole back and forth is almost like the Republicans are supposed to mow the yard, but the mower is out of gas, and Obama needs to fill it up first. But he's not filling the tank because Republicans already said they don't want to mow today. It's like, yea they're probably not going to do it, but they literally can't until you do your part of the job anyway, man.It's been less than 2 weeks and the Pubs have said eff mowing the yard, it's something that should be decided by the next child who is assigned that chore.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2016, 10:36:25 PM
Those not willing are not willing because they don't want to be the center of a clusterfuck inquest made as public as we can stand(and then some). Those who actually fancy themselves worth a nomination would rather wait until there wasn't a hellfire gauntlet to run. Someone who is looking for such a nomination doesn't care if Obama, Cruz, or God himself made the nomination. No one wants to have zero shot because of games that don't even involve their actual viability as a candidate. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a cheerleader dumbass.
I feel sorry for the first person or two nominated. At best they will be completely ignored by congress and completely mumped over by the pub media crew. At worst, congress will join in on the rough ridin' over.
UNPRECEDENTED confirmation process, first of its kind!
:lol: so libtarded
Post by: steve dave on February 26, 2016, 10:38:51 PM
I came to post the thing about his secret hunting society meeting or whatever he was at. I don't hunt but want to join that austrian group of studs.
Post by: The Big Train on February 26, 2016, 10:45:11 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 27, 2016, 10:40:46 AM
Oh and fantastic melting down and over the top hyperbolic drama from the usual lib suspects in this thread over the last 24 hours. #doublethumbs
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 28, 2016, 11:21:08 AM
holy crap, 27 pages :sdeek:
I came to post the thing about his secret hunting society meeting or whatever he was at. I don't hunt but want to join that austrian group of studs.
I'll see what I can do. You'd be a great edition
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 29, 2016, 03:08:53 PM
Post by: CNS on February 29, 2016, 03:11:52 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 29, 2016, 03:12:34 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 29, 2016, 06:46:28 PM
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 29, 2016, 07:46:53 PM
This whole back and forth is almost like the Republicans are supposed to mow the yard, but the mower is out of gas, and Obama needs to fill it up first. But he's not filling the tank because Republicans already said they don't want to mow today. It's like, yea they're probably not going to do it, but they literally can't until you do your part of the job anyway, man.It's been less than 2 weeks and the Pubs have said eff mowing the yard, it's something that should be decided by the next child who is assigned that chore.
Why are you having a conversation with yourself?
Post by: ednksu on February 29, 2016, 10:16:57 PM
Not a very good post.This whole back and forth is almost like the Republicans are supposed to mow the yard, but the mower is out of gas, and Obama needs to fill it up first. But he's not filling the tank because Republicans already said they don't want to mow today. It's like, yea they're probably not going to do it, but they literally can't until you do your part of the job anyway, man.It's been less than 2 weeks and the Pubs have said eff mowing the yard, it's something that should be decided by the next child who is assigned that chore.
Why are you having a conversation with yourself?
Post by: renocat on March 01, 2016, 06:59:18 AM
Post by: 8manpick on March 16, 2016, 09:51:54 AM
Post by: chum1 on March 16, 2016, 09:57:24 AM
Post by: wetwillie on March 16, 2016, 10:15:58 AM
Post by: chuckjames on March 16, 2016, 10:19:03 AM
Post by: CNS on March 16, 2016, 10:27:14 AM
Merrick Garland is about to wish he had never gone to law school
Maybe not. It seems they just plan to completely ignore him. :dunno:
Post by: wetwillie on March 16, 2016, 10:30:53 AM
Post by: chuckjames on March 16, 2016, 10:36:09 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 16, 2016, 10:37:30 AM
If you're McConnell don't you just take Garland? I mean Hillary will probably win, and with it a Dem senate to confirm a 45 year old Communist. Or do you really want Trump's potential nominee?
I would, but if I were McConnell, I wouldn't have painted myself into a corner saying that I wouldn't support any Obama nominee. Now if he takes Garland, he's giving in to Obama.
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 16, 2016, 10:57:21 AM
Post by: ChiComCat on March 16, 2016, 11:05:17 AM
The president and vice president have evidently set the precedent for what the senate is doing now. You reap what you sow.
The conclusion of Biden's rant in '92 - but don't let context spoil the 15 second clip that has made Republicans feel justified
Quote
"I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate," he said. "Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter."
Post by: 8manpick on March 16, 2016, 11:19:56 AM
Post by: wetwillie on March 16, 2016, 11:22:37 AM
Post by: 8manpick on March 16, 2016, 11:24:21 AM
How would it be a win?
Far closer to moderate than expected for BO or what will be nominated by president Hilary :dunno:
Post by: wetwillie on March 16, 2016, 11:31:33 AM
Post by: 8manpick on March 16, 2016, 11:36:34 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on March 16, 2016, 11:40:24 AM
Post by: Ptolemy on March 16, 2016, 11:54:14 AM
If the Republicans confirm this guy to the Court, Trump has no chance to win because there's no reason for people to come to the polls in November. They've lost the Court and the party is divided three ways and nobody can garner enough votes to win. Essentially, this is a big game of chicken. Trump will try to keep them from confirming anyone and the Senate will try to confirm someone to keep Trump out of the nomination.
Oh, and if the 2nd Amendment goes away we're looking at a new American Revolution.
Sleep well.
Post by: chuckjames on March 16, 2016, 11:57:36 AM
I doubt anyone in Trump's camp is smart enough to figure this out, but his chance at the White House DEPENDS on the Republicans holding firm and not confirming any Obama appointee. There is significant division over Trump being the nominee among the GOP. If he takes his can of spray-tan and army of miscreants and goes 3rd party, the election goes to the Hilldabeast and the 2nd Amendment goes by-by.
If the Republicans confirm this guy to the Court, Trump has no chance to win because there's no reason for people to come to the polls in November. They've lost the Court and the party is divided three ways and nobody can garner enough votes to win. Essentially, this is a big game of chicken. Trump will try to keep them from confirming anyone and the Senate will try to confirm someone to keep Trump out of the nomination.
Oh, and if the 2nd Amendment goes away we're looking at a new American Revolution.
Sleep well.
lol the 4th amendment wasn't a hill worth dying in, but damnit the 2nd is.
Post by: Asteriskhead on March 16, 2016, 12:00:04 PM
I doubt anyone in Trump's camp is smart enough to figure this out, but his chance at the White House DEPENDS on the Republicans holding firm and not confirming any Obama appointee. There is significant division over Trump being the nominee among the GOP. If he takes his can of spray-tan and army of miscreants and goes 3rd party, the election goes to the Hilldabeast and the 2nd Amendment goes by-by.
If the Republicans confirm this guy to the Court, Trump has no chance to win because there's no reason for people to come to the polls in November. They've lost the Court and the party is divided three ways and nobody can garner enough votes to win. Essentially, this is a big game of chicken. Trump will try to keep them from confirming anyone and the Senate will try to confirm someone to keep Trump out of the nomination.
Oh, and if the 2nd Amendment goes away we're looking at a new American Revolution.
Sleep well.
:lol: x infinity
Post by: CNS on March 16, 2016, 12:12:31 PM
Good grief.
Post by: Ptolemy on March 16, 2016, 12:22:02 PM
regardless of who gets in office, there is no threat to the second amendment.
Good grief.
Heller was 5-4.
From Breyer's dissent: "...there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
Post by: chuckjames on March 16, 2016, 12:23:11 PM
regardless of who gets in office, there is no threat to the second amendment.
Good grief.
Heller was 5-4.
From Stevens' dissent: "...there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
:love:
Post by: star seed 7 on March 16, 2016, 12:32:30 PM
Post by: treysolid on March 16, 2016, 02:10:08 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on March 16, 2016, 02:22:36 PM
what about the 1st amendment, ptolemy? Trump wants to get rid of it so he can sue journalists who write mean articles about him.
That one's easy. Presidents do not write legislation and nobody in Congress would "open up libel laws."
Post by: CNS on March 16, 2016, 02:31:03 PM
Post by: ednksu on March 16, 2016, 02:41:55 PM
Post by: 8manpick on March 16, 2016, 02:43:56 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on March 16, 2016, 03:50:26 PM
So, there is very little a pres can do about one amendment, but not the other. Hmmm.
While you're thinking, look up Supreme Court cases where they have tried to take away a person's freedom of speech. I have already shown you one where they attempt to remove the right to keep and bear arms.
Post by: CNS on March 16, 2016, 03:56:31 PM
Post by: Institutional Control on March 16, 2016, 04:32:57 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on March 16, 2016, 06:12:02 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160316%2Ffd28ee14556072568c684891a781fdd4.jpg&hash=826081afcee21f5d5c4bee6477abe8a00b6af109)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why are republicans acting like the next president won't be replacing at least two more justices? Did we replace all the old people with fourtysomethings while I was on vacation?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 16, 2016, 10:01:19 PM
Post by: TheHamburglar on March 16, 2016, 10:12:42 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160316%2Ffd28ee14556072568c684891a781fdd4.jpg&hash=826081afcee21f5d5c4bee6477abe8a00b6af109)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why are republicans acting like the next president won't be replacing at least two more justices? Did we replace all the old people with fourtysomethings while I was on vacation?
This made me curious and found a couple things:
1. Thomas is only 67. I didn't realize he was so young when nominated.
2. Roberts is younger than Sotomayor.
Post by: Ptolemy on March 17, 2016, 12:07:47 AM
If they weren't supposed to be political, they wouldn't be assigned to a president.
Post by: star seed 7 on March 17, 2016, 12:20:01 AM
Post by: puniraptor on March 17, 2016, 11:42:00 PM
Post by: bones129 on March 17, 2016, 11:48:10 PM
I love how The Big O took a dump on Pat's Robert face by nominating a candidate he supported in the past.
:thumbs:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 18, 2016, 08:51:53 AM
Another circuit court judge :zzz:
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 10:42:39 AM
I love how The Big O took a dump on Pat's Robert face by nominating a candidate he supported in the past.
:thumbs:
This clown judge was nominated for the Supreme Court previously?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 18, 2016, 10:47:30 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 10:49:01 AM
I put the line at 8 months before inauguration, so anyone who dies before June 20, current pres gets to nominate.
Thoughts?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 18, 2016, 10:51:13 AM
Where should the line be for nominating or letting the next pres do it? Like, if a justice died on October 15th of an election year, I'd say yeah just wait for the next pres, but if he died 16 months before the election, the sitting pres makes more sense to nominate.
I put the line at 8 months before inauguration, so anyone who dies before June 20, current pres gets to nominate.
Thoughts?
I'd put it at 1 or 2 months. If the president has time to do his job, he should do it.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 10:52:14 AM
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 11:16:22 AM
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 11:29:56 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
The sitting president should always nominate the next justice. This isn't hard.
what if the justice dies on January 1, 19 days before inauguration?
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 11:34:21 AM
Post by: michigancat on March 18, 2016, 11:44:06 AM
The sitting president should always nominate the next justice. This isn't hard.
what if the justice dies on January 1, 19 days before inauguration?
Why even have a president 19 days before the inauguration?
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 11:45:24 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 11:48:56 AM
The sitting president should always nominate the next justice. This isn't hard.
what if the justice dies on January 1, 19 days before inauguration?
Why even have a president 19 days before the inauguration?
well his corrupt corporate buddies aren't gonna pardon themselves rusty
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 11:51:18 AM
The sitting president should always nominate the next justice. This isn't hard.
And that is precisely what has happened. The Presdident nominated someone. Now show me where the Senate is required to approve of that nomination...
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 11:54:24 AM
:billdance:The sitting president should always nominate the next justice. This isn't hard.
And that is precisely what has happened. The Presdident nominated someone. Now show me where the Senate is required to approve of that nomination...
They certainly aren't required to. They can be obstructionist to their hearts content. Usually doesn't sit well with the American people however.
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 11:58:50 AM
They certainly aren't required to. They can be obstructionist to their hearts content. Usually doesn't sit well with the American people however.
If that is the case, Hilldabeast will win the election and the 2nd Amendment will go away.
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 12:01:32 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 12:12:19 PM
They can probably just obstruct for the four years of her term.
The Democrats would not have to do that (they will run congress since the GOP lost it due to being divided). Plus, she will have avoided indictment by promising to nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. Welcome to Amerika!
Post by: cfbandyman on March 18, 2016, 01:10:22 PM
They can probably just obstruct for the four years of her term.
The Democrats would not have to do that (they will run congress since the GOP lost it due to being divided). Plus, she will have avoided indictment by promising to nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. Welcome to Amerika!
Don't necessarily agree with the details, but that is exactly what the GOP is facing. I love how they think delaying this to an election will help them. It'll only end up worse and they lose control of everything. Honestly I hope that happens, the destruction of the GOP as we know it is nigh and it's best to get it going in earnest.
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 01:17:03 PM
Don't necessarily agree with the details, but that is exactly what the GOP is facing. I love how they think delaying this to an election will help them. It'll only end up worse and they lose control of everything. Honestly I hope that happens, the destruction of the GOP as we know it is nigh and it's best to get it going in earnest.
Enjoy it for now Comrade. But Hilldabeast is the final straw needed to break the last remaining resistance to an Article 5 Convention.
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 01:22:10 PM
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 01:23:15 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 01:27:27 PM
Mark Levin listener outed
Actually, just a George Mason fan.
Post by: steve dave on March 18, 2016, 02:17:03 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 02:26:59 PM
Post by: sys on March 18, 2016, 02:34:33 PM
and the thing is that they know that. the senators talking up how they won't consider an obama nominee are the same ones wringing their hands about how a trump candidacy will hand the presidency and possibly the senate to the democrats.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 18, 2016, 02:40:11 PM
i don't have any problem with the 'pubs not confirming, or refusing to consider, the nominee or wherever it is that they want to draw the line. i just think they're being stupid. they're going to get a more liberal judge as a result.
and the thing is that they know that. the senators talking up how they won't consider an obama nominee are the same ones wringing their hands about how a trump candidacy will hand the presidency and possibly the senate to the democrats.
The dilemma they've created for themselves is that it will be hard for them to get reelected if they confirm this guy after making such a strong statement to their voters that Obama should not be making the nomination.
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 03:11:44 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 18, 2016, 03:22:25 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 03:46:27 PM
Obama has whipped the collective republican ass for the better part of a decade. For a man that dislikes the gamesmanship of politics, he is quite good at it.
It's pretty fun
Post by: Ptolemy on March 18, 2016, 03:58:59 PM
Obama has whipped the collective republican ass for the better part of a decade. For a man that dislikes the gamesmanship of politics, he is quite good at it.
Gloat now. What goes around comes around. Wasn't long ago you guys went through the Carter/Mondale/Dukakis morass then the Lewinsky/Gore/Kerry years.
Post by: renocat on March 18, 2016, 04:32:30 PM
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 18, 2016, 06:00:03 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/16/the_republicans_who_voted_for_merrick_garland_in_1997_are_against_him_now.html
Federal district judge does not equal supreme court justice.
Post by: renocat on March 26, 2016, 01:35:53 PM
Post by: wetwillie on March 26, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Post by: steve dave on March 26, 2016, 01:55:52 PM
I about exploded when I read Senator Moran of Kansas said that we should give Garland a hearing and vote. I thought this senator was a conservative. I do not want Obama to get his way.
How is voting on it bad?
Post by: star seed 7 on August 23, 2016, 04:50:10 PM
Sounds like a great country :love:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2016, 06:24:16 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on August 23, 2016, 07:00:41 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2016, 07:18:29 PM
Post by: stunted on October 13, 2016, 03:25:01 PM
now it's getting interesting
Post by: Kat Kid on October 13, 2016, 03:29:02 PM
Post by: stunted on October 13, 2016, 03:39:20 PM
that's one thing against for sure. it does translate to "didn't think assassination meant prostitues at the vineyard"
we'll see anyways.
Post by: stunted on October 21, 2016, 04:52:33 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvUJfopXYAAkaDV.jpg:large)
Post by: michigancat on October 21, 2016, 04:58:55 PM
Post by: stunted on October 21, 2016, 04:59:19 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on October 21, 2016, 05:28:14 PM
Post by: catastrophe on October 21, 2016, 05:33:58 PM
Post by: mocat on October 24, 2016, 12:49:30 PM
Post by: LickNeckey on January 26, 2017, 09:08:47 AM
Obama can nominate people for supreme court until he pisses himself to dust. Republican Senate should not even have a hearing for anyone appointed by this law breaking bastard. He lost all right.IMO.to.have this right.when he used executive orders to.circumvent the laws he is supposed to enforce.
quick question would Trumps current executive order spree preclude him from appointing?
thanks i'll listen off the air
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 26, 2017, 09:50:15 AM
Post by: catastrophe on January 26, 2017, 09:53:45 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 26, 2017, 10:06:47 AM