Hopefully nominate someone who does not believe that the devil is an actual real person.
http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin- … ndex3.html
I mean, I know lots of people believe the devil is a real dude, but you expect SCJs to be a little more sophisticated than the hoi polloi they rule over, lol.
Good residence to that useless POS. Needs to replaced by someone who is competent and doesn't have an imaginary friend or enemy.
Obviously it wasn't your intent, but thanks for the link. It was a good article about what I think was a extremely good Supreme Court Justice.
Thankfully the vehemence of your views isn't the norm. You are welcome to your world. I will stay in mine.
Obama waited until after he had finished whacking balls for five hours on the golf course before addressing the death of Justice Scalia. He plans on nominating someone for the court. And he said he expects the Senate to do its job.
The president was dressed in rather casual attire. A Supreme Court justice has died. Most people would hope that a President would put on a tie to show a little respect.
I think this is the ultimate "stick it up your butt" moment for Obama. Here we have the GOP complaining over the Constitutionality of his Executive Orders but when a clear Constitutional issue arises, we are thrown into a quandary as to how they can control the appointment despite the Constitutional directive. The hypocrites are having a fit with this. Trump is even encouraging McConnell to kill the vote until after the election. What a gaggle of geese we have running OUR country.
Do you think Democrats would behave differently if their roles were reversed? You are right, it is a gaggle of geese running the show, but it is a bi-partisan gaggle.
GA, you are a lot more RED then you let on.
This is not tit for tat. There is only one political party that threatens to 'shut down the government' if it does not get its way. It is the party of sore losers and scorched earth obstructionism.
Did you hear it?
The senate majority leader announces to the entire world that for purely partisans reasons he and his Republicans are going obstruct the President in his Constitutional duty to replace the late Scalia. This is not to be the result of an on-going process but a deliberate statement in defiance of protocol and procedure. The GOP is always talking about the 'Constitution', it obvious that that is only important when it is something that they want.
Tell me of anything that the Democrats have done that rise to this level?
How about leaving the state to prevent a vote they didn't like?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41644074/ns/u … sJt5_IrKUk
Yes, I remember that, but it was not at the federal level.
It happened in Texas as well, I would not want to have to dig far to find skulduggery from the GOP rampant at the state and local level.
I don't think that it 'rises' to the level of shutting down, forcing the government into default over rightwinged silly concepts and the like.
So do you think that McConnell is out of line?
Sure. And not being at the federal level means democrat malfeasance is acceptable. Got it. (Pardon the sarcasm, but that's a pretty inane response.)
But the government has never been shut down by anyone. Only tiny portions of it (the ones that will most hurt the little people) and only temporarily. With zero cost savings to boot. The "Progressive" president we have made sure of that with very careful selections of what to close while continuing to pay employees. Like national forests that had rental property on them that people lived in. Like national monuments, to cause the most disruption possible to visitors and thus dislike of the GOP. Instead of simply closing congress for a few days at a real cost savings in congressional salaries he chose to shove it onto the travelers, the people that lost their home for a while, the vets needing care, etc. Tell me that isn't worse than refusing to vote for a budget with bloated pork spending.
I'd even add that the shutdown was because of the silly leftwing notion that you and I should pay for health insurance (instead of actual care) for those that can't or won't pay their own way.
That is your call, Wilderness, Republicans call anything that does not go to defense or tax cuts to their weathy constituencies wasteful spending. That is why there is always going to be an 'us and them'.
You have always implied in your comments that voters are being bought, well it is their choice to choose whomever they want to lead them regardless of what you think their motivations are.
They shut it down in the 1990's the GOP under gingrich, or am I mistaken.
Typical conservatives are always think the GOP is the watchdog for the public purse, when they merely want to spend the money on their own objectives, that is all. There is nothing inane about that.
We are already fundamentally a socialist society, get used to it. Your world of limonade stands in buccolic Idaho are for the rest of us, a thing of the past. There is that 'them and us' again.
You and this crazy idea that you never followed through on that we don't need the preponderance of present goverment regulatory agencies. It is up there with the idea that Mexican's manufacture cinco de mayo for political purposes here.
More of 'us vs them'. Compromise is the only hope because we can never see things through the same lens.
The people will speak in Nov 2016 as to the direction that we should go. We will all have to abide with their decision and we must wait until then. May the best man and set ideological principles win.
"Republicans call anything that does not go to defense or tax cuts to their weathy constituencies wasteful spending. "
Really? Money used to build roads is wasteful according to the GOP? To schools? To water treatment, or FEMA? This is nothing more than gross exaggeration from a died-in-the-wool Democrat that thinks the world revolves around the party. Sorry, but that's what it looks like.
Yep, it's the choice of voters who to vote for - the ones that give entitlements or the ones that expect personal responsibility - just as it the choice of politicians whether to vote in favor of large donors or not. And just like the politicians, all too many vote in favor of personal gain and hang the country.
No, we're not fundamentally a socialist society. Only highly Democratic states, and then primarily high density population areas, fall under that evil cloud. The rest of the country still believes in taking care of themselves, working for a living and personal responsibility.
But I never said that we don't need most of regulatory agencies. We do. And if you don't think Cinco de Mayo was manufactured for the gringos north of the border you should do a little research on it. It's fascinating to see that virtually all of the celebrating is done either north of the Rio Grande or, to a much lesser degree, just south of it. We're the only country I've ever heard of that forbids the display of our flag during "nationalist" celebrations by foreign citizens in the country illegally.
Yep - compromise is the only hope. But so far I have seen zero compromise from you - just more rhetoric that the GOP is evil and Democrats have all the answers. With a ton of "progressives" thrown in in an effort to legitimize change whether good or bad.
Unfortunately, the ideology that's going to win is the increase of power to the politicians and wealthy. Nothing for the common man but a few more chains to tie them to government. (Do you get the feeling that I'm totally disgusted with our political system? )
You can be just as adamant about your perspective, and point of view on virtually everything we have been discussing.
Who knows your 'personal responsibility' guys may win. I know that you are digusted with the system, but you seem to find the right and conservatives as the beginning of the way out and I believe otherwise. Its all or nothing with the conservatives, right now. Regardless of what Rush Limbaugh tells conservatives, most people still work for living.
But again you may be referencing the fact that either political party will be vehicle of the increase of power to the politicians and the wealthy....
Well, conservatives have a much better handle on economics (though whether they use it for the country or personal gain is another question) in the personal responsibility conclusion. The "progressive" stance, on the other hand, appears very much to be to simply to throw money (taken from the dwindling middle class) at anyone that wants it. And it is, and will continue to be, driving the country to economic failure. We simply cannot support half the population off the efforts of the other half. No matter how hard you soak the rich, the money just isn't there and neither is the required product. Nor will the situation improve; as people figure out they can maintain the same lifestyle without working they will stop producing and simply live off of charity. After all, anything they earn past a meager amount simply goes to feed those that won't earn their own way.
Yes, that was the point - that it won't matter which party wins the presidency, or congress, it will result in increased power to politicians. Because that's what they're there for - to increase their power.
Hey Cred, Of course you can call it "Red" if you want, but I think of it as being a non-partisan perspective myself. For a lot of folks, ideology shapes their reality. I try to avoid that pitfall.
For instance, "...only one political party that threatens to 'shut down the government' if it does not get its way."
I bet you meant the Republicans didn't you?
"Tell me of anything that the Democrats have done that rise to this level?"
Ok, here you go...
Here is a neat Washington Post article detailing previous Government Shutdowns:
*Agency funding shutdowns (not overall government shutdowns)
*1977: Democrat President, Senate, & House - 3 times - 12 days, 8 days, 8 days
*1978: Democrat President, Senate, & House - 18 days
*1979: Democrat President, Senate, & House - 11 days, **note; this one did include a partial government shutdown, and it was over a Congressional and Senior Civil servant pay increase.
**the following did include partial, non-essential government shutdowns;
**1981: Republican President, Republican Senate, Democrat House; the Democrat House insisted on both greater defense cuts than Reagan wanted and pay raises for itself and for senior-level federal civil servants. So Reagan vetoed the bill resulting in a 2 day partial shutdown.
**1982: Republican President, Republican Senate, Democrat House; 3 days, The House also opposed funding the MX missile program, a major defense priority of Reagan's.
**1983: Republican President, Republican Senate, Democrat House; 3 days, "...House Democrats passed an amendment adding close to $1 billion in education spending. They also cut foreign aid below what Reagan wanted, adding money for Israel and Egypt but cutting it substantially for Syria and El Salvador, and cut defense spending by about $11 billion relative to Reagan's request. "
**1984: Republican President, Republican Senate, Democrat House; 2 days, "...Passage of a spending bill was complicated by the House linking it to a crime-fighting package (which Reagan wanted) and a water projects package (which he opposed), and the Senate's tying it to a civil rights measure (which Reagan also opposed) that would have reversed a Supreme Court ruling weakening civil rights requirements on universities receiving federal funds. "
etc. etc. Covering the period up to 1996 there were several more in the article. All but one were the result of Democrat House intransigence. Sort of like the Republican motives of the most recent shutdown that you like to refer to during Pres. Obama's terms.
As you can see, I heartily disagree that there is "...only one political party that threatens to 'shut down the government' if it does not get its way."
... and about those "purely partisan reasons to obstruct the President's constitution duties"... - regarding a Supreme Court nomination.
Do you mean something like this?
"...As usual, when the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats sing a different tune. Today, they want Obama to pick Scalia’s replacement. Back in 2007, things were different.
CNS News reports:
Schumer in ’07: ‘We Should Not Confirm Any Bush Nominee to the Supreme Court’
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is describing current GOP calls to let the next president make a Supreme Court nomination “obstructionism”, but in 2007 Schumer said, “I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (Justices John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito,” and recommended the Senate, “should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society on July 27, 2007.
“With respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Alito on the court,” Schumer later added."
Schumer's 2007 declaration was made when President George W. Bush still had a year and a half left in office. McConnell's promise was made as President Obama entered the final eleven months of his presidency.
I would bet that Democrat blockage of Republican presidential SCOTUS nominations via filibuster, (a la Justice Alito), and character assassinations, (a la Robert Bork), don't even enter the conversation of partisan politics - in your mind.
I do have to admit that when viewed in conjunction with the above Schumer quote, this was a real chuckle; "...This is not to be the result of an on-going process but a deliberate statement in defiance of protocol and procedure."
Really Cred? Do you really think your folks, (the Dems), own the High Road of politics? What are those memory pills I keep seeing advertised... Ginkgo Biloba, or something like that. I'll see if I can get you some.
You've made your point. I remember Bork and the political drama from the Dems and holding up nominations for ideological reasons. I am disappointed to need to be reminded, that they all DO IT, as you say. Perhaps, you should send me some of your pills.
I can't let the fact that I don't like this McConnell guy interfere with a fair interpretation of these events, I stand corrected....
Oh no! You can't do that! I know there is a hook in there somewhere. That sounds too much like the line I use to get out of trouble with my wife..."Yes dear, you're right, I'm wrong, I'm sorry."
Oh no, I am not falling for that! You've set a trap in there somewhere and as soon as I figure it out I'll get back to you.
If you want to throw it into a partisan argument you are right. But that is not what I commented on. The hypocrisy of claiming Constitutionality as a guide by some takes a back seat to the Constitution when it comes to preferences was my point.
And yet this WAS okay with the democrats in the last administrations nominations to the court ?
Since I missed your point the first time, I came back for seconds. (still not disagreeing with the "gaggle of geese" comment)
I see your point, except that the Repubs aren't claiming any unconstitutionality in an Obama appointment, nor is their desire to block nominations unconstitutional. It is all just ugly politics. Ugly political tactics that we have seen from both sides.
As for the "Constitutional directive," it is only that he shall nominate, but it is with the Senate that he makes the appointment. So the "hypocrites" are really only following their Constitutional directive to be involved in the appointment process, just as the President is following his in the nominating process.
This adversarial confrontation is nothing new. It is just being played up as a "hypocritical" example by the Democrats. (just as the Repubs claimed the same when the Dems did it to Bush nominees)
"This adversarial confrontation is nothing new. It is just being played up as a "hypocritical" example by the Democrats. (just as the Repubs claimed the same when the Dems did it to Bush nominees)"
Your statement is correct and I totally agree. This is why I say the system is broken and the partisan bickering from both sides is of our own doing. We vote them in, continue to support them by carrying on the useless dribble and bitch about the results.
It is very sad to lose Justice Scalia. He was passionate about the rule of law and the Constitution. I am sure that he will be deeply missed by those who knew him well personally and professionally. He had my respect because of his wisdom and understanding of the Constitution’s intent which he held in his heart as he served for nearly 30 years.
I pray that his wife, Maureen, their 9 children and 36 grandchildren will find comfort as they morn their great loss. Thank You, Lord!
Would that our government's leadership give us more noble men like Antonin Scalia.
Scalia - Constitutional Originalism and Textualism - Yes and Yes!
It has been said that it was Scalia that propelled interest in an interpretation of the Constitution that focused on the original intent of the Constitution's framers at the time of the framing, and in textualism, which focuses on the meaning of the specific wording, versus an interpretation of what the framers intentions were - behind the wording.
I agree with both perspectives. I think proponents of a "living" Constitution, applying different meanings dependent on current societal conditions, are wrong.
I think the court will sorely miss Justice Scalia, his perspective, and his affect on the other Justice's reasoning.
I would agree. If the constitution needs updating (and it does, sometimes) then that provision is built into it. There is neither need nor excuse to "interpret" it differently that what it says or the framers intended just because society has changed.
But I think half the court is likely secretly celebrating the loss and will not miss him at all. Too many of SCOTUS decisions are purely political to think otherwise.
The 'other side' of the court saw him as a trusted collegue. It has been shown that ideological differences do not pass on to their relationships with one another.
I think you are right about that. I have heard a lot about his friendship with Justice Ginsburg, and their ideologies certainly were different.
Could be - I certainly have friends (and family ) on the "dark side". But then I don't work with and against them on a daily basis. That would be hard to do, I think. Or maybe not, if both recognized that opposing viewpoints are necessary in our system.
Now, I am seeing reports that Scalia was found with a pillow over his face. That throws in some confusion and a possible conspiracy that makes me feel ill. Is that true?
A President gets to appoint an individual, usually a judge in another federal court, for an open seat on the Supreme Court. A Senate committee then meets with this individual to ask them questions regarding their fitness for this position. If they like what they hear, they refer them to a confirmation vote of the entire Senate. The Senate’s approval means they are appointed as a Justice for the rest of their lives.
On a rare occasion, a President makes an appointment when the Senate is on a break (or recess).
Either situation could be the situation that replaces Justice Antonin Scalia, since the Senate is on recess this week. This is a very important decision!
“Show me a righteous ruler and I will show you a happy people. Show me a wicked ruler and I will show you a miserable people.” (Proverbs 29:2; GNT)
Something else should happen with these nominations to keep partisan politics OUT of the supreme court ! This goes back and forth and only threatens the constitutional vigilance !
I think when a person dies, out of deference to the feelings of their friends and family, we should show a little respect for a few days--or keep quiet. It's not too much to ask.
Respectfully and Quietly: The American Center for Law & Justice has a petition for allowing We The People to have a voice in selecting a new Justice to preserve the Constitution. That is the most important issue we have now ... especially because of you know who.
http://aclj.org/supreme-court/no-suprem … 44567127=1
The organizers of that petition, and various other movements that want to prohibit Obama from nominating a new SCJ, are apparently unaware of Scalia's judicial philosophy. Scalia was a stuanch originalist. That means following the constitution as it was written. The constitution gives Obama the right to nominate his successor. It is not only his constitutional right, but also his duty. He cannot leave the bench 8/9 full just because a bunch of conservatives are having a hissy fit. If they want to honor Scalia's memory, they must accept that the current president is going to fulfill his duties.
Historical precedent favors letting our next President appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement.
http://aclj.org/supreme-court/historica … eplacement
The Obama Administration wants to change the Constitution.
I say ... Hell No! I'll honor Scalia's service in preserving the Constitution.
....and the constitution says that right belongs to the president. Scalia himself would find the weak precedent to be a flimsy argument.
The chance that Obama's nominee would be approved by the senate is low anyway, so it's all just idle debating here.
It is idle talk, I agree. That's why I posted a link to a petition where by people can take some action on this important issue to let their voice be heard.
The Petition: http://aclj.org/supreme-court/historica … eplacement
The American people should have a say!
Because of Obama's disdain for the US Constitution, he should not be allowed to nominate a new Justice, who would feel indebted.
The precedents you promote via your linked article have nothing to do with Constitutional challenges or changes, and everything to do with party politics. Just as today's Republican's are advocating.
If you are promoting obstinate party politics as precedents to be honored - I think you might be holding the wrong end of the stick.
Pres. Obama's administration is not trying to change the constitution, and since he is our legitimately elected president - then the People's voice will be heard through his nomination.
ps. Your article's first precedent concerning William Woods incorrectly declared his confirmation to be through a Democrat-controlled Senate. The 1881 Senate composition was evenly divided - 37 Senators each. And since Scalia was an originalist, he would definitely advocate for Pres. Obama's Constitutional authority to nominate a replacement - so if you really want to honor him, then honor his Constitutional perspective, not ugly party politics.
Anyone remember Robert Borque, How about Clarence Thomas ? Obama can nominate anyone he wants and still the senate doesn't have any obligation to confirm them .
WE need true term limits for all these positions , senate , congress and the supreme courts as well !
The biggest problem in America right now is the implied protectionisms simply , of being in office . These terms ,two, four or more overlapping years certainly effect the votes that they all make ! Each position overlaps these others to protect the apathy and non-performance of them all !
Congress , each one , flip flops according to the hype , Senate is the same ! All for the protectionism of each other and themselves . They all live extremely !
by Reality Bytes5 years ago
Appearing on Egyptian television before concluding a four-day trip in Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution but urged Egyptians to look to other countries' newer constitutions...
by Dan Harmon16 months ago
For some reason I've been getting emails from Mike Huckabee, running for President. They include such statements as:"I, Mike Huckabee, pledge allegiance to God, the constitution, and the citizens of the...
by My Esoteric6 days ago
The whole sentence is "The Constitution, hewarned, should not be interpreted as if it were "an ordinary statute,and with the strictness almost of a penal one.""(From the New Your Univeristy Law...
by Jack Lee11 days ago
The executive order to suspend entry from 7 middle east countries for 90 days.Before you answer, consider the following,1. Is this order Constitutional?2. Was there precedence for this type of order by previous...
by leeberttea6 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by Madame X6 years ago
Section 1 of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.