Author Topic: Scalia (Read 56552 times)

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #225 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:36:10 AM »

Yet Obama is the first I've ever heard proclaim that was his goal, so you'll have to ask him.

chuckjames · « **Reply #226 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:39:33 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:36:10 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.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #227 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:41:40 AM »

That's nice Chuck, but the new deal for example was a direct response to a cataclysmic serious of economic events and one method of trying to correct or improve a specific domestic situation impacting nearly the entirety of the US population.

chuckjames · « **Reply #228 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:47:44 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:41:40 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?

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #229 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:49:14 AM »

That's merely responses to specific domestic issues that are everyday issues that all Presidents have to address, you're flailing.

chuckjames · « **Reply #230 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:52:14 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:49:14 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!

chuckjames · « **Reply #231 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:56:01 AM »

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-scalia-s-death-anti-union-group-legal-strategy-20160214-column.html

The best laid plans of Mice and Men...

MakeItRain · « **Reply #232 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:56:49 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:32:59 AM

The last two appointees are irrelevant to this discussion of the future

We already know who is on his short list

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #233 on:** February 15, 2016, 09:57:31 AM »

Great, thanks MIR. :bigbigthumbsup

Panjandrum · « **Reply #234 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:02:42 AM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 09:29:21 AM

Quote from: Panjandrum on February 15, 2016, 09:25:37 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.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #235 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:10:09 AM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 02:21:12 AM

Quote from: puniraptor on February 14, 2016, 11:50:41 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?

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".

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #236 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:13:47 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2016, 09:27:15 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

MakeItRain · « **Reply #237 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:15:24 AM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 10:10:09 AM

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 02:21:12 AM
Quote from: puniraptor on February 14, 2016, 11:50:41 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?

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.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #238 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:23:51 AM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 10:15:24 AM

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2016, 10:10:09 AM
Quote from: MakeItRain on February 15, 2016, 02:21:12 AM
Quote from: puniraptor on February 14, 2016, 11:50:41 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?

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.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #239 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:36:13 AM »

Wait, who took the longest to be confirmed?

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?

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:07:21 PM

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 13, 2016, 06:04:53 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

slobber · « **Reply #240 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:37:22 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)

chuckjames · « **Reply #241 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:41:33 AM »

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

For Dax.

chum1 · « **Reply #242 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:45:51 AM »

Quote from: slobber on February 15, 2016, 10:37:22 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.

chum1 · « **Reply #243 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:48:27 AM »

He's not looking for an ordinary nominee, though. He'll want to take his time in order to find the most liberal as eff people he can.

MakeItRain · « **Reply #244 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:51:09 AM »

Quote from: slobber on February 15, 2016, 10:37:22 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.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #245 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:53:51 AM »

Quote from: slobber on February 15, 2016, 10:37:22 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

SkinnyBenny · « **Reply #246 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:55:44 AM »

Quote from: chuckjames on February 15, 2016, 10:41:33 AM

https://twitter.com/paulwaldman1/status/699268113825718272

For Dax.

Great find

slobber · « **Reply #247 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:59:20 AM »

Thanks all!

Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

chuckjames · « **Reply #248 on:** February 15, 2016, 10:59:42 AM »

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on February 15, 2016, 10:53:51 AM

Quote from: slobber on February 15, 2016, 10:37:22 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.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #249 on:** February 15, 2016, 11:07:07 AM »

Because it's not worth it