Author Topic: Scalia (Read 56487 times)

star seed 7 · « **Reply #100 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:04:38 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 11:00:57 PM

Quote from: OK_Cat on February 13, 2016, 10:53:50 PM
Also 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

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #101 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:09:24 PM »

Quote from: OK_Cat on February 13, 2016, 11:03:59 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.

OK_Cat · « **Reply #102 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:10:42 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 11:09:24 PM

Quote from: OK_Cat on February 13, 2016, 11:03:59 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

ednksu · « **Reply #103 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:28:42 PM »

I guess this only matters when it's a Pub nominee:
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.

Cire · « **Reply #104 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:39:11 PM »

Antonin scalia is probably the most activist judge that ever activisted

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ednksu · « **Reply #105 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:41:15 PM »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/13/can-republicans-really-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-for-a-year-probably/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_fix-blocking-nomination-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

More on the totally unprecedented actions of the Pub party.

TheHamburglar · « **Reply #106 on:** February 13, 2016, 11:53:58 PM »

Quote from: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 10:40:05 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.

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #107 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:04:28 AM »

The Pubtard butthurt is great. "Obama should do the right thing by neglecting one of the major duties of his job for basically an entire year because if he goes through with this, we won't like the outcome." lolllllllll

catastrophe · « **Reply #108 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:09:57 AM »

Senate will not confirm an Obama appointee. SCOTUS selection is actually a pretty big deal, so if you think republicans will get crap for not confirming an Obama appointee then you are either a democrat or an idiot.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #109 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:12:40 AM »

They will absolutely get crap if they obstruct for a year

catastrophe · « **Reply #110 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:15:11 AM »

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on February 14, 2016, 12:12:40 AM

They will absolutely get crap if they obstruct for a year

From dems, not from anyone else.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #111 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:15:34 AM »

Lol ok

ednksu · « **Reply #112 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:19:54 AM »

One of the biggest reasons for push back against pubs and not getting the white house in 12 was because they deadlocked 2/3 of the government. Now the court is roughly 4/4 split deadlocking the last functioning arm of government. Yeah the America people totally won't care.

catastrophe · « **Reply #113 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:26:44 AM »

The American people will absolutely care. Republicans will be outraged Obama nominated someone, Democrats will be outraged he isn't confirmed. Everyone else will be dead inside and will hate Democrats and Republicans.

sys · « **Reply #114 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:41:10 AM »

hardcore pub voters will punish any senator (this year, they won't remember in two years) who votes to confirm. moderate independents may punish the pub presidential candidate for their party being obstructionist, especially if the justice nominee is well-qualified, likable and moderate. it's an open question if having the open position looming for the next president would more motivate confirmed crats or pubs to turnout.

in a close election it might make a difference, but is the coming election likely to be close?

SdK · « **Reply #115 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:46:11 AM »

History will give 0 fucks about any of this.

#TheWesIsTheFuture

Ptolemy · « **Reply #116 on:** February 14, 2016, 12:55:47 AM »

You millenial kid libs have NO idea what you are in store for. Search Robert Bork.

The chickens have come home to roost.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #117 on:** February 14, 2016, 01:04:21 AM »

If you don't agree with everything we want, then you're an obstructionist!!!

renocat · « **Reply #118 on:** February 14, 2016, 01:12:42 AM »

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on February 14, 2016, 12:12:40 AM

They will absolutely get crap if they obstruct for a year

If tables were turned,: Hairyass Ried would do the same. These sumsabiches are getting a taste of medicine. Lying bunch of.horsecrapers

SdK · « **Reply #119 on:** February 14, 2016, 01:40:00 AM »

Guys. None of this matters.

#TheWesIsTheFuture

puniraptor · « **Reply #120 on:** February 14, 2016, 02:27:40 AM »

How long until Trump publicly says Obama had Scalia murdered? Did it already happen and is waiting for me in the Trump thread?

wetwillie · « **Reply #121 on:** February 14, 2016, 07:14:22 AM »

That would really be something puni.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #122 on:** February 14, 2016, 07:33:18 AM »

Quote from: TheHamburglar on February 13, 2016, 11:53:58 PM

Quote from: wetwillie on February 13, 2016, 10:40:05 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.

But the libtards said blocking an appointee was completely unprecedented? ????

wetwillie · « **Reply #123 on:** February 14, 2016, 07:40:06 AM »

Who won the fight to get a nominee into the court? Was it the president or the senate? I'm thinking the senate held out and the next president got to appoint the judge right?

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #124 on:** February 14, 2016, 07:45:13 AM »

Quote from: Sundance»¤«Kid on February 14, 2016, 12:46:11 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.