Why Garland is a good choice

[ednksu]

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/472051889/a-look-at-garlands-judicial-record-reveals-few-hot-buttons

Great piece going through how he is a consensus builder, great mind, and a true moderate.  It's a shame the neoconservatives in this country will stop at nothing to stop the functioning of our government and will hold up his nomination.  This piece makes the great point that any nominee will appear to be a bad choice for neocons because Scalia was so far right.

[wetwillie]

He's a slam dunk, too bad he is just a pawn and doesn't have a chance.

[renocat]

He is like all liberals who believe it the role of the Court to create and influence policies and wishes of progressive.  Conservatives believe the power of goverance emanates from the will of the.majority tempered by the rights stipulated explicitly in the constitution or estblished by an act of Congress.  Anyone Obama nominates is bad.

[star seed 7]

What if the will of the majority is someone Obama nominates?

[ednksu]

He is like all liberals who believe it the role of the Court to create and influence policies and wishes of progressive.  Conservatives believe the power of goverance emanates from the will of the.majority tempered by the rights stipulated explicitly in the constitution or estblished by an act of Congress.  Anyone Obama nominates is bad.

Lol
The fact that you called him a liberal shows you have no grounding in reality.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'm personally stunned the npr has been unable to find any reason this man shouldn't be a supreme. I'm convinced. Thanks for the great find edna.

[ednksu]

I'm personally stunned the npr has been unable to find any reason this man shouldn't be a supreme. I'm convinced. Thanks for the great find edna.

I'm sure SCOTUS blog is another liberal outlet without any credibility. 


PS: Burn your diploma if you actually got one from K-State.  You're dragging down my degrees.

[sonofdaxjones]

Remember whackadoodle is the self appointed sole judge (sorry not sorry) on what is or isn't a credible source around here.

[ChiComCat]

He is like all liberals who believe it the role of the Court to create and influence policies and wishes of progressive.  Conservatives believe the power of goverance emanates from the will of the.majority tempered by the rights stipulated explicitly in the constitution or estblished by an act of Congress.  Anyone Obama nominates is bad.

Conservatives also seem to believe that if the courts don't agree with them, the judges should be crap canned. 

[gatoveintisiete]

This guy Garland should be fine.

[steve dave]

I don't believe that most of these people think he's a bad choice (not you huelskamp you weirdo) and would approve him almost unanimously if in a vacuum. but, they have to be voted into office again soon. and if trump has taught us one thing about people who vote it's that a lot of them are rough ridin' downgrades. and you don't want to be painted as a barry hussein supporter by someone even more crazily right wing than yourself come election time.

[catastrophe]

My takeaway from the article (maybe I didn't read close enough) was that the guy has a pretty moderate record on the stuff no one really cares about and little to no record on the hot button issues. Not a reason to reject someone per se, but I can understand some hesitation still. That said, if I'm the Republicans I wouldn't risk losing senate seats and having Obama/Clinton appoint a way more liberal justice after the general.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.

I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't believe that most of these people think he's a bad choice (not you huelskamp you weirdo) and would approve him almost unanimously if in a vacuum. but, they have to be voted into office again soon. and if trump has taught us one thing about people who vote it's that a lot of them are rough ridin' downgrades. and you don't want to be painted as a barry hussein supporter by someone even more crazily right wing than yourself come election time.

Shut up, libtard.

[ednksu]

Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.

I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.

It's been precedence for over 30 years where a gap exists to defer to executive regulations you rough ridin' idiot.  Don't like it, change the law, as our constitution demands


.  Did you read the piece or just go off talking points?  You are the problem with our political system.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Edna, what in the world?

[ednksu]

Edna, what in the world?

It's a sad rough ridin' world where your vote counts as much as mine. 

[catastrophe]

Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.

I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.

It's been precedence for over 30 years where a gap exists to defer to executive regulations you rough ridin' idiot.  Don't like it, change the law, as our constitution demands

I don't quite follow. Obama could appoint anywhere from 0-30 or more justices to the Supreme Court if he wanted to. That doesn't mean the senate has some obligation to approve all those folks.

[ednksu]

Fwiw, I don't think there's a requirement we have 9 supremes.

I'm sure the hesitation with garland is that he seems extremely found of ever expanding law making through administrative regulation. That should clearly be a point of contention for anyone with a brain. Sadly, few people here, or anywhere else for that matter, have a brain.

It's been precedence for over 30 years where a gap exists to defer to executive regulations you rough ridin' idiot.  Don't like it, change the law, as our constitution demands

I don't quite follow. Obama could appoint anywhere from 0-30 or more justices to the Supreme Court if he wanted to. That doesn't mean the senate has some obligation to approve all those folks.

The entire government has an obligation to ensure the good functioning of the government.  Deciding to leave the court a person down because you've invented a lie about "giving the people a voice," even though that was a 2012 campaign issue isn't a legitimate reason to deadlock the court.  Yes the constitution doesn't give a time frame for replacement, but it also assumed that the party system wouldn't actively destroy the functioning of the government because of a profound, illogical, hatred of the president. This has already manifested itself in the functioning of the NLRB and the district courts.  It's seditious for it to escalate to the supreme court.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork.

It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards

[ednksu]

If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork.

It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards

Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual.  This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president.  instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.

Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance.  There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.

So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.

[8manpick]

If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork.

It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards

Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual.  This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president.  instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.

Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance.  There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.

So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.

3/4 on your/you're. You're score is 75%, your a C student.

[ednksu]

If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork.

It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards

Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual.  This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president.  instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.

Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance.  There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.

So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.

3/4 on your/you're. You're score is 75%, your a C student.

# of fucks given.....

and I'll assume you were trying to use irony at the end. 

[8manpick]

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If everyone was as reasonable as Edna, we wouldn't even have sedition and the government would tick along like clockwork.

It's far more likely the framers left it vague without mandate so some unreasonable out of control tyrant couldn't pack the court with his yes men. Just like they put in bicameral legislature to do the same. If the libtard way was the will of the people the legislature wouldn't be controlled in historic numbers by non libtards

Unfortunately nothing in your post is factual, as usual.  This is about your party's vendetta against a legitimately elected president.  instead of sacking up and dealing with it you have crippled the government and created lasting damage to our country.

Also you should look at the record number of districts in the modern era which are illegally gerrymandered to ensure your party's dominance.  There is a reason why a number of states are having to redraw their districts because of your party's illegal acts.

So CN for you: You're lying, your history is wrong, and your pissed that you can't have your way.

Well this is rough ridin' crazy.