Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Antonin Scalia dead at age 79

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I just cant get "weekend at Bernie's" out of my head. All they had to do was keep the secret for a few months.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bonehead View Post
      On one hand, could Hillary pick someone further to the left than Obama? On the other hand her chances of ever getting to the White House diminishes smaller every day. The smart money goes to waiting until after the elections so the next president can put the court back in balance. Short answer, yes. It would be better to leave the spot vacant for a year than to steer the country towards a cliff and punch the accelerator.
      So much for fulfilling the Constitutional duties of the Senate. Guess we only want them to be strict Constitutionalist when it agrees with our viewpoint.

      Comment


      • #18
        For those that keep up with such things. Who is on the short list to fill the opening?

        Comment


        • #19
          Well the Senate can just 'Bork' any nominations as well. I'm just saying.

          Comment


          • #20
            We will have a new justice in July, that will block any action by Obama on the current docket and give the GOP a pause in the news about obstructionism long enough for the public to move on to other issues before the general election.

            If the GOP loses sight of the real prize (White House) and actually does try to block a new appointee till January, they will cost themselves the general election and 3 picks to SCOTUS. Right now the loss of Scalia is a temporary set back given the number of justices that will retire/die over the next 4 years- if the GOP wins the presidency. If I was a GOP strategist, I would play a long game to avoid the media led backlash and hope that HRC's email problems crush her either through an indictment of her person, or her top aides Huma and Sullivan who are both guilty as sin in violating federal laws regarding information security. I would also start taking digs at the Dems over super delegates and how undemocratic the Democrat elites really are and try and shift public opinion so that the Berners start demanding the DNC tell its super delegates to vote with the popular vote.

            Comment


            • #21
              Good strategy, but the Clintons seem to have a teflon coating. I wouldn't bet the farm on Billary getting busted anytime soon if ever. The people who are running that investigation are probably waiting to see how the election is going and how it will impact them before they pull the trigger on any indictments. Maybe they just want to have a rock solid case, maybe not. And Hillary did recently say she would have no problem appointing Obama to the court. A man who as a supposed constitutional scholar bemoaned how the constitution gets in the way of progressive policies. Not an appointment I'd like to see no matter how many times he was elected. Also, the senate doesn't shirk their duties by not approving an appointment. They are under no constitutional obligation to rubber stamp all the president's choices. Quite the opposite if they feel the choice is bad for their constituents or the country. That's part of their responsibility as elected officials. It's also part of the checks and balances and tends to keep the court from swinging too far in either direction.

              Comment


              • #22
                Within two hours of Scalia's death being reported, presidential candidates along with Republican and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill were feuding over whether Obama should appoint a replacement for the eloquent and outspoken Scalia or wait for the next administration to make a decision. The battle lines underscored the huge political stakes in the 2016 election, which could cement the ideological balance of the court for years to come.
                What a joke by the Republicans. When, in history, has any US President postponed an appointment till the next administration when he had 10 1/2 months left in office? Ridiculous. Pretty soon someone will want one postponed when the President has two years left in office.

                Wouldn't it be ironic if in January there is a Democrat President and a Democratic Senate. How does McConnell want to bet?
                Last edited by tbm3fan; 14 Feb 16,, 05:29.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                  What a joke by the Republicans. When, in history, has any US President postponed an appointment till the next administration when he had 10 1/2 months left in office? Ridiculous. Pretty soon someone will want one postponed when the President has two years left in office.

                  Wouldn't it be ironic if in January there is a Democrat President and a Democratic Senate. How does McConnell want to bet?
                  I'm already enjoying so called 'strict Constitutionalists' screaming for the Senate to delay the decision so the people can vote. ;-)
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    So much for fulfilling the Constitutional duties of the Senate. Guess we only want them to be strict Constitutionalist when it agrees with our viewpoint.
                    Gun Grape

                    Following, applying the law in a just and equitable fashion? Would that pragmatic ideologically free kind of thinking actually work? (Sarcasm) I agree 100%.

                    List of potential SCOUS nominees from politico.: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...acement-219271

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Obama picks a fairly centrist nominee & basically dares the GOP to stonewall for 11 months & give the Dems a high profile and ongoing way to rally the base & get out the vote. GOP Senators then have to make their calculations on how their own electorate will react if they confirm. Dice rolling time.
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                        So you want the Senate to neglect one of its most important jobs for a year? leave the Supreme Court with a year long vacancy? Just so Hillary can pick a new Justice?

                        Or in the Republican majority minds, to take a gamble and see if someone better comes along that we can agree with and get our way?
                        Amen.
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                          But the voters have done their job. In the last two elections the picked the person that they wanted to run the country. Part of that job is to pick people to fill the various vacancies that occur during his tenure.
                          The voters picked President Obama to do that job until Jan of next year.

                          Just saying.
                          Even better.

                          = = = = =

                          citanon,

                          The President of the United States nominates Supreme Court justices.
                          Justices are not elected positions.
                          Trust me?
                          I'm an economist!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Denying a liberal moron a chance to appoint another liberal moron is not abdicating Constitutional Authority. That is, in fact, how the Constitution is supposed to work. That's why the justice needs to be CONFIRMED and the President cannot just appoint justices.

                            "Checks and Balances"

                            I should elaborate and say that Congress has the Constitutional Right to block a Supreme Court Justice nominee for any damn reason it pleases. The Check and Balance on THAT is the Election Process. I see the process working as intended.

                            Tactically, the Republicans should just go ahead and confirm a relatively centrist person and go strong for the next 2-3 appointees by actual winning a damned election.



                            EDIT: Funny suggestion. Obama should appoint Ted Cruz. That would sail through the Senate, and then Trump wins the nomination, and Hillary would probably win the general and appoint the next 2-3 Justices.
                            Last edited by GVChamp; 14 Feb 16,, 15:36.
                            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              on a lighter yet darker note, is it just me or does this whole thing feel really Game of Throne-ish, more so than the Presidency?
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                on a lighter yet darker note, is it just me or does this whole thing feel really Game of Throne-ish, more so than the Presidency?
                                Dear Donald Trump,

                                Let's bury the hatchet. My daughter is getting married next Sunday.

                                Regards,
                                Jeb!
                                "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X