Author Topic: Scalia (Read 56891 times)

Ptolemy · « **Reply #325 on:** February 17, 2016, 12:41:46 AM »

This situation is truly fascinating!

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!

renocat · « **Reply #326 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:22:42 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.

ednksu · « **Reply #327 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:30:46 AM »

Quote from: renocat on February 17, 2016, 09:22:42 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?

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #328 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:31:13 AM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on February 16, 2016, 06:03:52 PM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 02:43:49 PM
Quote from: MakeItRain on February 16, 2016, 02:37:59 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

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2016, 11:02:36 AM
Yes, 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

ednksu · « **Reply #329 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:31:42 AM »

So Scalia was staying at a resort ranch free of charge owned by a guy who was sued for discrimination that the SCOTUS declined to hear.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #330 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:38:07 AM »

Should we examine the travels and relationships of the entire Supreme Court Whackadoodle?

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #331 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:40:46 AM »

I bet there's SC justices doing business with, using the services of numerous entities that have been sued, protested, at some point are or were considered controversial and at some point or another been on the steps or even inside the SC.

Crazy, huh Whackadoodle?

420seriouscat69 · « **Reply #332 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:41:46 AM »

Have you guys seen black mass?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #333 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:43:44 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:38:07 AM

Should we examine the travels and relationships of the entire Supreme Court Whackadoodle?

Yes we should.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #334 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:44:35 AM »

Sounds good, in fact let's put cameras in the SC as well.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #335 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:46:26 AM »

Spying on congress, the president, and the supreme court should be a duty of the CIA, really.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #336 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:47:55 AM »

They've been doing it for years, FBI as well.

CHONGS · « **Reply #337 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:48:56 AM »

The conspiracy theories this is making will be interesting.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #338 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:49:49 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:47:55 AM

They've been doing it for years, FBI as well.

Which one of them murdered Scalia?

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #339 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:50:42 AM »

Both, with the NSA and them aka they

ednksu · « **Reply #340 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:53:32 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:38:07 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.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #341 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:54:12 AM »

Ah yes the "radical right" LOL.

ednksu · « **Reply #342 on:** February 17, 2016, 09:59:36 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:54:12 AM

Ah yes the "radical right" LOL.

goatse level butthurt

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #343 on:** February 17, 2016, 10:00:01 AM »

Not really

DQ12 · « **Reply #344 on:** February 17, 2016, 10:36:50 AM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:44:35 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.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #345 on:** February 17, 2016, 10:37:57 AM »

Quote from: Dlew12 on February 17, 2016, 10:36:50 AM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:44:35 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

DQ12 · « **Reply #346 on:** February 17, 2016, 11:27:34 AM »

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on February 17, 2016, 10:37:57 AM

Quote from: Dlew12 on February 17, 2016, 10:36:50 AM
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2016, 09:44:35 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

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.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #347 on:** February 17, 2016, 11:29:14 AM »

Oh, ok

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #348 on:** February 17, 2016, 11:29:15 AM »

Yet people are surprised when polls show that the public doesn't know who justices are.

michigancat · « **Reply #349 on:** February 17, 2016, 11:32:38 AM »

Why even have oral arguments then?