Author Topic: Scalia  (Read 56781 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36812
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #675 on: February 29, 2016, 03:11:52 PM »
His son or daughter

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37188
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #676 on: February 29, 2016, 03:12:34 PM »
His sister is already a federal appeals judge. Maryanne Trump Barry.

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #677 on: February 29, 2016, 06:46:28 PM »
I'm guessing an 80 year old would have a tough time getting confirmed.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline Asteriskhead

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 9371
  • giving new meaning to the term "anger juice"
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #678 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?

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #679 on: February 29, 2016, 10:16:57 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?
Not a very good post.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline renocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5971
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #680 on: March 01, 2016, 06:59:18 AM »
Repubuttlickins in the Senate are starting the Obama Butt Kiss Cavein Dance.again. Now they are meeting with him to discuss and will recommend the next president select Scalia jr.   What happened to hell no!!  If we cave, then the party is.as.worthiness as steer in a pen of heifers.

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19134
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #681 on: March 16, 2016, 09:51:54 AM »
Fire this bad boy back up! :woot:
:adios:

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21964
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #682 on: March 16, 2016, 09:57:24 AM »
I was a good thread!

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #683 on: March 16, 2016, 10:15:58 AM »
Merrick Garland is about to wish he had never gone to law school
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #684 on: March 16, 2016, 10:19:03 AM »
I get the pick from a politics standpoint, but I hate it as a liberal. Oh well Hillary is basically gonna be able to nominate Stalin next year.  :Woot:

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36812
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #685 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:

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #686 on: March 16, 2016, 10:30:53 AM »
Yep, sounds like it's going to be smooth sailing for old merrick
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #687 on: March 16, 2016, 10:36:09 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?

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37188
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #688 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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7663
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #689 on: March 16, 2016, 10:57:21 AM »
The president and vice president have evidently set the precedent for what the senate is doing now. You reap what you sow.

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17662
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #690 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."

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19134
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #691 on: March 16, 2016, 11:19:56 AM »
It would be a win for pubs to confirm this guy if they hadn't been such obstinate cunts immediately after Scalia's death
:adios:

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #692 on: March 16, 2016, 11:22:37 AM »
How would it be a win?
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19134
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #693 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:
:adios:

Online wetwillie

  • goEMAW Poster of the WEEK
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #694 on: March 16, 2016, 11:31:33 AM »
He is basically Souter 2.0 replacing Scalia, he isn't going to vote how they want ever.
When the bullets are flying, that's when I'm at my best

Offline 8manpick

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 19134
  • A top quartile binger, poster, and friend
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #695 on: March 16, 2016, 11:36:34 AM »
Seems better than what is likely if they don't confirm him
:adios:

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44995
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #696 on: March 16, 2016, 11:40:24 AM »
I think I'm starting to hate Barack Obama. Jesus, seven years in and he's still bending over backwards to appease these people.

Offline Ptolemy

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #697 on: March 16, 2016, 11:54:14 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.

Offline chuckjames

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #698 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.

Offline Asteriskhead

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 9371
  • giving new meaning to the term "anger juice"
    • View Profile
Re: Scalia
« Reply #699 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