Justice Scalia leaves opening

[cc]

lol @ pathetic attempts to circumvent convention and reality on the ground



"Sandra Day O'Connor said he should pick" .. She did not say anything about senate should confirm  .. the meaty part



That's mere undisputed irrelevant fluff - Where's the meat lad?





Good posts Renee - They were MEATY. Explains it clearly ...... for "those who listen"

[Romero]

I'm pretty sure a Reagan-appointed, conservative retired Supreme Court Justice is more based in reality than you are. You've already admitted that nominating a Supreme Court Justice is Obama's job. You've already admitted that you were wrong!



Where's the meat? I've already got reality on my side. Your meat? You believe Obama shouldn't nominate just because you don't want him to!

[cc]

.... You've already admitted that nominating a Supreme Court Justice is Obama's job



..... You believe Obama shouldn't nominate ....

STOP misquoting.

You really caught yourself misquoting this time - directly contradicting yourself saying direct opposites in one single post - Kinda blew that in your exited state  



What part of "That's mere undisputed irrelevant fluff" (my agreeing that he should pick) don't you get?



What part of "She did not say anything about senate should confirm .. the meaty part" don't you also get?



What part of "Senate does not have to approve within any preset timeline" don't you get?





All your he said, she said is laughable. I think you even tried to quote Carson -

The ONLY question and the only thing of relevance  is when the senate confirms - the rest is just talk,  spin and IRRELEVANT carry on

[Renee]

As far as his stance on gay sex was concerned it followed the same principles. Gay marriage and gay sex is NOT covered in the US Consitution and thus there is no legal basis for a ruling . All the recent ruling on gay marriage did was created yet ANOTHER protected class of people and force another portion of the leftwing political agenda onto the American public. Scalia was a dissenting voice in that obvious power grab by the left in federal government.

"Traditional" marriage isn't covered in the Constitution either. Same-sex marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional because they are unconstitutional. Can't keep a basic right away from some citizens.



"Another protected class"? Only heterosexuals should be allowed rights and protections?



"Political agenda"? Is the heterosexual right to marriage a political agenda?



People thought the same kind of nonsense about interracial marriage. The Supreme Court rightfully had to strike down those bans too.



Homophobe.

This is the problem with you lefty cocksuckers. You think everything is a "basic right" that can be legislated into existence. From same sex marriage rights to the so called right to subsidized healthcare you want all this shit at someone else's expense and you want some fairytale ruling to make it a reality.



Sorry dumbass but if something isn't specifically covered in the Constitution you can't just wish it into existence simply because you want it. Unless you are a leftwing whiner and force a political interpretation to facilitate your wants; then the sky is the limit.



As I stated previously, all these issues are politicized by special interest groups. They are counting on sheep like you or as you are known to the special interests as "useful idiots", to beat the drum so that they can exert more and more control over society. The mere fact that you think that a right to same sex marrige is a basic civil right, shows just how far your kind is willling to force your agenda onto others. Your kind are nothing but totalitarian assholes masquerading as concerned citizens.



I've said this before and I will say it again....your kind is a real problem for society. From your stance on the Muslim issue to gay marriage....you have it completely ass backwards (no pun intended).



I'm once again reminded on how you think airport security is a violation of human rights and I'm also reminded of your misbegotten belief that blacks didn't have voting rights in the US until 1965.  



BTW, do you know why interracial marrige was struck down? It was struck down because it didn't deal with same sex marriage. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated and I quote..." Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man",  but he qualified it by saying it was "fundamental to our existence and survival" By qualifying the right to marriage Warren was eluding to the biological union between a man and a woman.



Show me and everyone else here how "same sex" marriage fits that same qualifier.

[Renee]

lol @ pathetic attempts to circumvent convention and reality on the ground



"Sandra Day O'Connor said he should pick" .. She did not say anything about senate should confirm  .. the meaty part



That's mere undisputed irrelevant fluff - Where's the meat lad?





Good posts Renee - They were MEATY. Explains it clearly ...... for "those who listen"

Meaty???? OMG, please tell me you have not been contaminated by the "kissy meats".

[Romero]

STOP misquoting.

You really caught yourself misquoting this time - directly contradicting yourself saying direct opposites in one single post - Kinda blew that in your exited state  



What part of "That's mere undisputed irrelevant fluff" (my agreeing that he should pick) don't you get?



What part of "She did not say anything about senate should confirm .. the meaty part" don't you also get?



What part of "Senate does not have to approve within any preset timeline" don't you get?





All your he said, she said is laughable. I think you even tried to quote Carson -

The ONLY question and the only thing of relevance  is when the senate confirms - the rest is just talk,  spin and IRRELEVANT carry on

You originally claimed that "it's been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year".



Since when is something that hasn't happened "standard practice"?  



It's actual standard practice for the President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. It's actual standard practice for Congress to consider the nominee.



It's never been standard practice for the President to hold off and wait for the next President.

[RW]

Does the US Constitution deal with liberty and equality?

[Romero]

BTW, do you know why interracial marrige was struck down? It was struck down because it didn't deal with same sex marriage. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated and I quote..." Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man",  but he qualified it by saying it was "fundamental to our existence and survival" By qualifying the right to marriage Warren was eluding to the biological union between a man and a woman.



Show me and everyone else here how "same sex" marriage fits that same qualifier.

Both interracial and same-sex marriage bans were struck down because they were unconstitutional. Fact! The "eluding" of one judge was one judge's opinion. Marriage isn't a "biological union" by law. Marriage isn't just for people who can pro-create, is it? There are plenty of married couples who can't or don't want to have kids, so your homophobic argument is mere nonsense. Having children isn't a set condition for marriage and you know it.

[Renee]

BTW, do you know why interracial marrige was struck down? It was struck down because it didn't deal with same sex marriage. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated and I quote..." Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man",  but he qualified it by saying it was "fundamental to our existence and survival" By qualifying the right to marriage Warren was eluding to the biological union between a man and a woman.



Show me and everyone else here how "same sex" marriage fits that same qualifier.

Both interracial and same-sex marriage bans were struck down because they were unconstitutional. Fact! The "eluding" of one judge was one judge's opinion. Marriage isn't a "biological union" by law. Marriage isn't just for people who can pro-create, is it? There are plenty of married couples who can't or don't want to have kids, so your homophobic argument is mere nonsense. Having children isn't a set condition for marriage and you know it.

One Justice?????? Earl Warren was the CHIEF JUSTICE and his statement was part of the ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia, you blithering idiot.



Arguing with you is like discussing nuclear science with a monkey.



The argument is about the qualification of what makes marriage a "basic civil right". STICK TO IT, FFS!



If it is a "basic civil right" predicated on the "survival and existence" of the human race, then it damn well has a biological aspect to it. Unless you think the human race can exist and survive through buggery, in which case you need to buy a book on where babies come from.



The argument that some heterosexual couples can't have children is bullshit as it pertains to the premise of the qualification and YOU know it......Or maybe you don't because you are stupid.

[RW]

Claiming "homophobia" is a PC silencing tactic Romero.  Tsk tsk.

[RW]

Does the US Constitution deal with liberty and equality?

Does it or not?

[Romero]

One Justice?????? Earl Warren was the CHIEF JUSTICE and his statement was part of the ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia, you blithering idiot.



Arguing with you is like discussing nuclear science with a monkey.



The argument is about the qualification of what makes marriage a "basic civil right". STICK TO IT, FFS!



If it is a "basic civil right" predicated on the "survival and existence" of the human race, then it damn well has a biological aspect to it. Unless you think the human race can exist and survive through buggery, in which case you need to buy a book on where babies come from.



The argument that some heterosexual couples can't have children is bullshit as it pertains to the premise of the qualification and YOU know it......Or maybe you don't because you are stupid.

Has there ever been just one second in your life when you're not all angry and pissed off? Rooooaaaar! Renee mad!!



Same-sex marriage bans were struck down because they are unconstitutional. Just like interracial marriage bans. Fact!



Humans don't need marriage to survive and exist. Did humans stop existing in the times before "traditional marriage"? I don't think so, obviously!

[Romero]

Claiming "homophobia" is a PC silencing tactic Romero.  Tsk tsk.

I'm not claiming, and I'm not trying to silence her. The only thing that has ever shut Renee up on this forum is her own inability to control her freak outs.

[Renee]

Does the US Constitution deal with liberty and equality?

Does it or not?

Yes it does but in specific ways. Things like marriage as a civil right is a political interpretation of the 14th Amend.



The 14th Amend ratified in 1868 deals primarily with citizenship rights including that of freed slaves. Over the years the SCOTUS has taken it upon themselves to expand the Amendment to suit political purposes.

[Renee]

One Justice?????? Earl Warren was the CHIEF JUSTICE and his statement was part of the ruling handed down by the SCOTUS in Loving v Virginia, you blithering idiot.



Arguing with you is like discussing nuclear science with a monkey.



The argument is about the qualification of what makes marriage a "basic civil right". STICK TO IT, FFS!



If it is a "basic civil right" predicated on the "survival and existence" of the human race, then it damn well has a biological aspect to it. Unless you think the human race can exist and survive through buggery, in which case you need to buy a book on where babies come from.



The argument that some heterosexual couples can't have children is bullshit as it pertains to the premise of the qualification and YOU know it......Or maybe you don't because you are stupid.

Has there ever been just one second in your life when you're not all angry and pissed off? Rooooaaaar! Renee mad!!



Same-sex marriage bans were struck down because they are unconstitutional. Just like interracial marriage bans. Fact!



Humans don't need marriage to survive and exist. Did humans stop existing in the times before "traditional marriage"? I don't think so, obviously!

Again you don't seem to be able to stick to the SCOTUS interpretation of marriage as a "civil right". Just saying something is unconstitutional without knowing the basis of its constitutionality is what a uninformed fool does.



If you are going to argue a specific point you had best be able to back it up and not just talk in circles like you usually do. Just repeating the same thing over and over without adressing the actual issue makes you an idiot.