Text only | Text with Images

THeBlueCashew

General Discussion => The Flea Trap => Topic started by: RW on February 15, 2016, 03:41:12 PM

Title: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 15, 2016, 03:41:12 PM
Justice Antonin Scalia died this morning leaving a hole on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.



Obama says he will fill the roll, critics are saying he should wait.



What do you think and who do you think will fill the hole on the bench?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2016, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: "RW"Justice Antonin Scalia died this morning leaving a hole on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.



Obama says he will fill the roll, critics are saying he should wait.



What do you think and who do you think will fill the hole on the bench?

I see the vacancy filled being filled by the next president.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2016, 05:47:18 PM
Quote from: "RW"Justice Antonin Scalia died this morning leaving a hole on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.



Obama says he will fill the roll, critics are saying he should wait.



What do you think and who do you think will fill the hole on the bench?

I talked about this in another thread. Obama will nominate someone and the Republican controlled senate will block it. It's Reagan and Robert Bork all over again.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 15, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
I posted this in another thread...



"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument.



Have you not heard of the separation of the court from the State? Court judges are legal, not political, appointees. No wonder your country is in a godawful mess when your highest judiciary is POLITICALLY structured.



Any court is to be free of any political prejudice, and is to act in the interest of community justice, not political expediency. That you have a court that is comprised of political animals is a farce. If a member of the High Court of Australia, or Canada, or England made clear his or her prejudice against gays, politically opposite viewpoints or political preference in general they would be arseholed in a heartbeat.



World's greatest democracy?



Since when?"
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 15, 2016, 10:58:50 PM
Quote"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument

In my country and I'm bettin yours, the Supremes are all political appointees and function based upon their own political philosophy as much as is possible



While the process of selection is different, in function I really don't see any actual difference  between us & them
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 15, 2016, 11:03:43 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument

In my country and I'm bettin yours, the Supremes are all political appointees and function based upon their political philosophy as much as is possible



In function I really don't see what the actual difference is between us & them

Are you sure?

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://i.ytimg.com/vi/po3x8M8J4M4/maxresdefault.jpg%22%3Ehttps://i.ytimg.com/vi/po3x8M8J4M4/maxresdefault.jpg%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 15, 2016, 11:54:51 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote"It defies belief that the highest court in your land is actually a political instrument

In my country and I'm bettin yours, the Supremes are all political appointees and function based upon their own political philosophy as much as is possible



While the process of selection is different, in function I really don't see any actual difference  between us & them


Judges are appointed, and can only be removed by Parliament.



However, they are not appointed by virtue of their political leanings. They are appointed as a result of their judicial acumen. If the people of Australia caught whiff of political bias in the judges, there would be a uproar.



All judgments are scrutinised according to LEGAL principles.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 16, 2016, 02:20:10 PM
(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://images.dailykos.com/images/210116/story_image/scotus-scandal800.png?1455582471%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://images.dailykos.com/images/21011%20...%201455582471%22%3Ehttp://images.dailykos.com/images/210116/story_image/scotus-scandal800.png?1455582471%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 16, 2016, 02:54:19 PM
I find the debate around this ridiculous.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 16, 2016, 04:05:19 PM
Well, of course the left want him to pick a left bot and try to spin past events despite the fact 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... and none have been

They place spin material on websites like media matters for their minions / robots  to use to spin things for other minions who are not uneducated on issues ... not to mention any specific minion / robot of course.



And of course the right want to  use that as precedent and hold things off till after election ... even making it a huge election issue ... which it will be



Predictable is predictable
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 16, 2016, 04:56:24 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"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... and none have been

It hasn't been "standard practice". That's like saying it's "standard practice" for Supreme Court Justices to not die during a presidential election year.



There's nothing that says a president shouldn't perform his duties during an election year. Obama's still president and he's going to do his job. He will make a nomination as per actual standard practice and the Republicans can hissy fit as usual all they want.


QuoteHours after Scalia's death was announced, Ben Carson joined with fellow Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in calling on Congress to block the Supreme Court vacancy from being filled.



"It is imperative that the Senate not allow President Obama to diminish his legacy by trying to nominate an individual who would carry on his wishes to subvert the will of the People," Carson wrote in a statement, before even expressing his condolences for Scalia's family.



Asked if Carson and his cohorts were perhaps being hypocritical their opposition to Obama naming Scalia's replacement, Carson was remarkably honest about what animates the Republicans' rush to fight. "Do you think the same six people on stage would say the same thing if there were a Republican president in the White House right now — for them to wait until the next president is selected?" a South Carolina radio host asked Carson on Tuesday.



Without skipping a beat, Carson replied openly: "No, they wouldn't."



//http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/ben_carson_admits_the_truth_about_gops_scalia_hypocrisy_republicans_would_not_wait_to_pick_their_own_scotus_replacement/
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 16, 2016, 05:37:54 PM
More lefty type Saloon  spin (copy paste) ... always hilarious, but as usual .... meaningless carry on / babble / spin



Bottom line ...  "Fact" ... over the last nearly 80 years Supreme Court nominees have NEVER been nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year ... NEVER
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 16, 2016, 05:41:09 PM
Why is there a belief or concern that a Supreme Court Justice does governmental bidding?  Not only that, what the Republicans are saying is they want to pick the shill instead.



WTF?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 16, 2016, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"More lefty type Saloon  spin (copy paste) ... always hilarious, but as usual .... meaningless carry on / babble / spin



Bottom line ...  "Fact" ... over the last nearly 80 years Supreme Court nominees have NEVER been nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year ... NEVER

This is spin cc.  There have been nominations during election years in US history.  It's not an unheard of practise.



Why shouldn't the current President of the United States fulfill his duties and nominate/confirm a SCOTUS Justice?  Provide a reason.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 16, 2016, 05:58:44 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"More lefty type Saloon  spin (copy paste) ... always hilarious, but as usual .... meaningless carry on / babble / spin



Bottom line ...  "Fact" ... over the last nearly 80 years Supreme Court nominees have NEVER been nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year ... NEVER

That's just timing. Would it have made a difference if Scalia died in December? Of course not. You and the Repubs would still be inventing excuses.



"But but but it's the year before an election year!"



There's nothing that says the President has to stop doing his job. If a Republican was President right now, it wouldn't be an issue and you know it.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 16, 2016, 06:07:02 PM
Quote from: "RW"Why is there a belief or concern that a Supreme Court Justice does governmental bidding?  Not only that, what the Republicans are saying is they want to pick the shill instead.



WTF?


No Republicans are saying they a nominee that will uphold the constitution and interpret it as it is written. You can't trust Odumbo to do that. They don't want another Ginsburg who thinks the constitution is a rag that can be used to clean the wheels of her walker.



The bottom line is, despite all the whining, fussing and finger pointing by that ignorant turd, Romero and his leftard ilk, it's a fact that in the past 50 years dems have tried to obstruct more SCOTUS nominees than republicans have. All one has to do is look at the Robert Bork hearings and the failed attempt by the left to smear Clarence Thomas. when it comes to squashing something it doesn't agree with, no single party in the history of the US is more vicious and under handed than the Democrats.



This morning I saw that TV camera chasing, piece of shit, Chuck Schumer raving about how it can't be tolerated that the GOP controlled senator should be able to block one of Odumbo's nominees. Then archrival footage of dumb ass Chucky was broadcast calling for Dems to unite and block Clarence Thomas as a nominee. Open mouth, insert foot.



It only goes to show that in order to be a libertard all you need is a big mouth and a selective memory.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 16, 2016, 06:30:50 PM
I'm sorry but this shit is fucking ridiculous.  Just answer me this please...



Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year?



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so?



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees?



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing?  I mean aside from you disliking Obama.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 16, 2016, 06:35:34 PM
Quote from: "RW"Why is there a belief or concern that a Supreme Court Justice does governmental bidding?  Not only that, what the Republicans are saying is they want to pick the shill instead.



WTF?


Do you realise the self defeating answer to the second question?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 16, 2016, 06:36:27 PM
I have to say it's passed me by.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 16, 2016, 06:37:13 PM
Corruption is corruption.



Appointing a judge because he leans to your side of political ideology is corruption.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 16, 2016, 06:38:16 PM
A justice should be above political leanings IMHO.  I know that's not how it is IRL, but it is how it damn well should be.



A fight to be the one to pick the shill is just disgusting.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2016, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: "RW"Why is there a belief or concern that a Supreme Court Justice does governmental bidding?  Not only that, what the Republicans are saying is they want to pick the shill instead.



WTF?

As I said, Reagan nominated Robert Bork who was shot down by Democrat controlled senate. This will be the same.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 16, 2016, 06:40:31 PM
Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 16, 2016, 06:46:37 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.

You haven't explained it beyond saying "everything".  I don't give a shit who the president is.  You have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.  The waters have to be muddied by a bunch of bullshit politicking.  It's gross.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 16, 2016, 06:50:07 PM
It is also corruption of the judiciary.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2016, 06:56:32 PM
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "cc la femme"Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.

You haven't explained it beyond saying "everything".  I don't give a shit who the president is.  You have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.  The waters have to be muddied by a bunch of bullshit politicking.  It's gross.

It's funny how the Democrats change their tune with a Republican senate and final year Democrat president. It's funny watching the Democrats finally grow a conscience.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 16, 2016, 07:26:49 PM
Quote from: "RW"I'm sorry but this shit is fucking ridiculous.  Just answer me this please...



Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year?



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so?



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees?


Yes


Quote from: "RW" WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing?  I mean aside from you disliking Obama.


An appointment by a lame duck president is seen as a way to circumvent congress by using the courts as a way to legislate. In this case confirming an Obama nominee would tip the balance of power in his favor thus throwing the whole "checks and balances" concept out the window.



"The fact of the matter is that it's been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year. Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice"



Senator Chuck Grassley, Head of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 16, 2016, 08:00:55 PM
And if the next President is Hilary?



What agenda will she push?



The highest court of the land is there to ADJUDICATE, not FACILITATE. It is there to decide the legality not the probity of matters before it.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 16, 2016, 08:03:01 PM
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "cc la femme"Does Obama have the right to nominate a SCOTUS Justice this year? - yes



Does Obama have a Constitutional duty to do so? - yes



Do the Republicans or Democrats for that matter have a right to oppose nominees? - yes



WTF does an election year have to do with a damn thing? I mean aside from you disliking Obama. .. Everything ...  It's not dislike btw, its philosophy / agenda. To your words that you could just as easily substitute substitute Bush, or Clinton or Reagan or ..... etc.
 You have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.  The waters have to be muddied by a bunch of bullshit politicking.  It's gross.
 The waters are muddied when a leader anywhere picks someone of his philosophy / agenda .. which is ALWAYS the case everywhere


Quoteou have affirmed above that he has a constitutional duty to nominate.  That should be the end of it but nooooooooo.
nooooooooo ... that is just one persons duty and merely "starts" the process. The Senate then has the duty of "advice and consent" over anything he nominates



I'm surprised that you are surprised that political philosophy is primo ... It is in EVERYTHING and in EVERYWHERE .. . including here in Canada. The difference here is that with a majority there is no "advice and consent" and another  hack gets a free ride to a funny dress to then play  his or her cards as per his or her political philosophy
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 16, 2016, 08:06:39 PM
This is NOT appropriate judicial conduct...



"Justice Scalia, however, was more than just another court vote.

He was also one of the chamber's most outspoken advocates for conservative jurisprudence. He was a towering voice for the doctrine of originalism - that the text of the Constitution is immutable and not open to "modern" interpretations.

He was the author of District of Columbia v Heller, which struck down restrictions on handgun possession and held that the Second Amendment enshrined firearm ownership in the US as a constitutional right.

His fiery dissents, such as in recent cases on gay marriage and the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform, served as rallying cries for conservatives across the US."



This man was conducting his role as an independent adjudicator as a representative of the right wing of American politics.



If this is the case with all of them, this would explain with the US is such a mess.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 16, 2016, 09:29:18 PM
Appointments here  are for political agenda, and human judges cannot not apply their core beliefs whether intentional (usually) or not whenever there is a tiny gap to do so (most always)



 and despite your claims of your country's  purity,  all appointments in every land are for political agenda



Of course I know idealistically that should not be the case, but it IS and always will be



Purity of thought and action without personal bias is the luxury of one "Oz" ...  but not of yours / ours ... nor of any  country this side of the rainbow
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 16, 2016, 10:44:34 PM
Bollocks.



The High Court of Australia, whilst comprising of Justices appointed by Parliament, are completely neutral politically. If a Judge showed political bias, he'd be removed.



Its nothing like the US, where its clear that the party that has its own idealists on the bench gets its way.



The principle of our legal system is that the judiciary operates completely independently of government.



If a government (including President) instals a judge that is pre-disposed to the Governments ideology, that independence is neutered.



Sorry...you cannot keep pointing at other countries and say "I know you are but what am I".
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 16, 2016, 10:50:55 PM
So who appoints?



and who polices the appointers?



and who polices the appointees?

 

and who polices the police?



and who polices the police who police the police?



Wrong Oz. That's good theory, but In this world humans are humans who have and exercise beliefs and agendas consciously (usually) or not consciously (rarely)



Other than you and I, no such perfect person exists
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 17, 2016, 12:22:44 AM
And sometimes I wonder about you... ac_umm
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 17, 2016, 12:28:52 AM
and well you should



 ac_smile
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 17, 2016, 12:39:23 AM
OK, here's how it works / how the game is being played Mr Saloon.com copy / paste



(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-16-at-10.01.13-PM.png%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/%20...%20.13-PM.png%22%3Ehttp://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-16-at-10.01.13-PM.png%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)



Ahem.



Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, filibustered President Bush's last Supreme Court pick.



She also joined obstructionist Senate Democrats in filibustering a host of Bush nominees to crucial appeals court seats, including a top-flight Hispanic nominee named Miguel Estrada, who was held in limbo for two years before finally withdrawing.



Back then, Hillary and her allies framed the act of denying Bush his selections as [size=120]the fulfillment of a righteous duty[/size]. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's a giant disgrace, or whatever.



So STFU and stop whining and spinning
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 17, 2016, 12:45:50 AM
I'm addressing the entire system, not what is happening now.



In Australia, the Governor General can, acting as head of state, kick a Judge out. He or she also appoints them, upon recommendation of Parliament.



However, it provides a safeguard. The Governor General must act on behalf of the country as a whole, not as a politican.



"Under section 72 of the Constitution, Justices of the High Court:



Are appointed by the Governor-General in Council;

Cannot be removed except by the Governor-General in Council on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

Receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office; and

Must retire on attaining the age of 70 years."



In other words the G-G must convene a special Parliamentary session in a joint sitting of lower and upper house, and listen to the reason a Judge is unfit.



This prevents or reduces political bias on the judges behalf.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 17, 2016, 12:46:18 AM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"I'm addressing the entire system, not what is happening now.



In Australia, the Governor General can, acting as head of state, kick a Judge out. He or she also appoints them, upon recommendation of Parliament.



However, it provides a safeguard. The Governor General must act on behalf of the country as a whole, not as a politican.



"Under section 72 of the Constitution, Justices of the High Court:



Are appointed by the Governor-General in Council;

Cannot be removed except by the Governor-General in Council on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity;

Receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix; but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their continuance in office; and

Must retire on attaining the age of 70 years."



In other words the G-G must convene a special Parliamentary session in a joint sitting of lower and upper house, and listen to the reason a Judge is unfit.



This prevents or reduces political bias on the judges behalf.


And don't tell me to STFU, SHEILA!!!
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 17, 2016, 12:48:33 AM
Thanks for that info



Does sound as though Oz has tried much harder than others



It would at least reduce bias
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 17, 2016, 12:51:12 AM
lol ... I should have been more clear



the Sheila's "So STFU and stop whining and spinning" was for the whining and spinning Mr Saloon.com copy / paste
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 17, 2016, 01:51:26 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"OK, here's how it works / how the game is being played Mr Saloon.com copy / paste



(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-16-at-10.01.13-PM.png%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/%20...%20.13-PM.png%22%3Ehttp://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-16-at-10.01.13-PM.png%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)



Ahem.



Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, filibustered President Bush's last Supreme Court pick.



She also joined obstructionist Senate Democrats in filibustering a host of Bush nominees to crucial appeals court seats, including a top-flight Hispanic nominee named Miguel Estrada, who was held in limbo for two years before finally withdrawing.



Back then, Hillary and her allies framed the act of denying Bush his selections as [size=120]the fulfillment of a righteous duty[/size]. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's a giant disgrace, or whatever.



So STFU and stop whining and spinning

You and the Republicans are whining and spinning, not me!



It's not just about filibustering and blocking nominees. That's been done by both parties plenty of times and it's not unexpected. In this case, Republicans are claiming Obama shouldn't nominate a Supreme Court Justice, period.



Well, he's going to because it's what the President is supposed to do. Many Republicans are starting to back off from their nonsense because they realize how foolish it's making the GOP look.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 17, 2016, 05:53:22 PM
Since when did the GOP back down from foolishness?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 17, 2016, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"lol ... I should have been more clear



the Sheila's "So STFU and stop whining and spinning" was for the whining and spinning Mr Saloon.com copy / paste

Sorry cc but I'm seeing more spin from you than him on this one.  When you boil it down, he's right - it's presidential duty.  If the GOP wants to kick up a big ole fuss about the nominee(s), power to em but part of his job is to make the nomination and it's moot whether or not it's an election year (that would be the spin part).



This is yet another example of how fucking hysterical (and not in the funny way) American politics and media is.  What a sad state of affairs.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 17, 2016, 09:36:42 PM
There's no spin to it. As to last year of office, there has been no person nominated and selected in almost 80 years .. fact.



There was no will for any party in 80 yrs  and there sure is no will now for the GOP to approve a 3rd "agenda loaded"  judge for him.



"it's presidential duty to appoint." true.  Also true is that it is not  the senates duty to approve any specific person.



As all appointees are "agenda loaded" that's how the system works
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 17, 2016, 09:38:59 PM
The system doesn't work.



That is the problem.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 17, 2016, 09:41:39 PM
lol - You posted as I was typing "or doesn't work"



But it is what it is and this year will go as it goes
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 17, 2016, 09:47:15 PM
Thus, shall the US continue its downward spiral...
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 17, 2016, 11:41:10 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"There's no spin to it. As to last year of office, there has been no person nominated and selected in almost 80 years .. fact.



There was no will for any party in 80 yrs  and there sure is no will now for the GOP to approve a 3rd "agenda loaded"  judge for him.



"it's presidential duty to appoint." true.  Also true is that it is not  the senates duty to approve any specific person.



As all appointees are "agenda loaded" that's how the system works

Obama can nominate, but it will be the next president that gets the senate to approve the nominee. Hey, it could be Bernie Sanders making that nomination. :shock:
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 17, 2016, 11:48:59 PM
Its insane.



The President gets to appoint a JUDGE to the Supreme/High Court that accords with HIS political persuasion???



How is that NOT political corruption?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 17, 2016, 11:52:58 PM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"Its insane.



The President gets to appoint a JUDGE to the Supreme/High Court that accords with HIS political persuasion???



How is that NOT political corruption?

When I worked in the states, I met Americans who were pissed at how political the process of picking supreme court justices is.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 12:12:13 AM
That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.



That is the exact opposite of democracy.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 12:19:23 AM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.



That is the exact opposite of democracy.

Impartiality on the American supreme court is unknown from nomination to the rulings of sitting justices. That's the US supreme court. Justices are nominated based on how closely their politics aligns with the sitting president. Their confirmation is dependent on whether the politics of the nominee aligns with the majority party in the senate.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 12:33:11 AM
Unbelievable.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 02:11:13 AM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

That is the exact opposite of democracy.


WTF are you prattling about now?



The SCOTUS presides over constitutional law ONLY. The US Consitution does not cover issues such as the right to an abortion. Scalia was one of those rare individuals that understood that abortion was NOT a constitutional issue.



Any of his is opinions on the issue were based on the fact that there is nothing in the US consitution to base a ruling upon. Any ruling on abortion from the SCOTUS such as Roe v Wade (which btw was before Scalia's tenure) was a "pulled out of the ass" interpretation just as the recent ruling on gay marriage was. Scalia recognized this and wasn't afraid to to write a dissenting opinion stating that fact and wasn't afraid of criticism he received for it. THAT is what is required of a Supreme Court Justice.



In the context of the US Consitution rulings on issues such as abortion or gay marriage are politicized interpretations. Those justices that found some kind of dubious grounds to base a ruling upon so they could legislate from the bench are ones perverting the concept of democracy; Scalia WASN'T one of them. Scalia was a strict follower of the letter of the law as it was written in the Consitution.



Enough with your blind criticism of a man that you know nothing about. I will give you a pass on this because your opinions of anything pertaining to the US are riddled with your  teenage like angst and thus tainted with negatively and a lack of real world objectivity.



So just STFU already because you make me sick with your endless, uninformed, overly opinionated, bullshit.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 03:36:11 AM
I completely agree with Renee.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 03:38:54 AM
Why do people constantly assume the pro life stance is exclusive to religion?  There are huge secular anti abortion, as well as pagans and "atheists against abortion".  Abortion is not a religious issue. It's a humanity issue. Period.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 05:05:06 AM
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

That is the exact opposite of democracy.


WTF are you prattling about now?



The SCOTUS presides over constitutional law ONLY. The US Consitution does not cover issues such as the right to an abortion. Scalia was one of those rare individuals that understood that abortion was NOT a constitutional issue.



Any of his is opinions on the issue were based on the fact that there is nothing in the US consitution to base a ruling upon. Any ruling on abortion from the SCOTUS such as Roe v Wade (which btw was before Scalia's tenure) was a "pulled out of the ass" interpretation just as the recent ruling on gay marriage was. Scalia recognized this and wasn't afraid to to write a dissenting opinion stating that fact and wasn't afraid of criticism he received for it. THAT is what is required of a Supreme Court Justice.



In the context of the US Consitution rulings on issues such as abortion or gay marriage are politicized interpretations. Those justices that found some kind of dubious grounds to base a ruling upon so they could legislate from the bench are ones perverting the concept of democracy; Scalia WASN'T one of them. Scalia was a strict follower of the letter of the law as it was written in the Consitution.



Enough with your blind criticism of a man that you know nothing about. I will give you a pass on this because your opinions of anything pertaining to the US are riddled with your  teenage like angst and thus tainted with negatively and a lack of real world objectivity.



So just STFU already because you make me sick with your endless, uninformed, overly opinionated, bullshit.


Take your pass and shove it up your ass.



You think I sit here and make this shit up?



"Scalia was a proponent of originalism, believing that the constitution's meaning is fixed, and should be interpreted in the way the framers originally intended. He was decidedly anti-progressive: Scalia wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, voted against protecting equal pay, wanted states to be able to outlaw gay sex, and sometimes said things outside of the courtroom about these issues that raised eyebrows."



This statement comes from the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/15/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-justice-women). So, don't argue with me, argue with the good folks at The Guardian, whom you will no doubt accuse of subversion and anti Americanism.



And this from the NY times...



"In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 5-to-4 ruling upheld women's right to an abortion but allowed states to impose some restrictions on the procedure. Justice Scalia, along with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, dissented. He argued that while the states had a right to permit abortions, they were not required to do so. He further insisted that the issue should be resolved by the democratic process, instead of through the courts. Justice Scalia's death comes just weeks before the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on another abortion-related case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole."



Now, IF said honourable justice was utterly impartial, why such a furore over who appoints a successor. You see a point of dissent and drop on it like John Goodman on a free slider, completely bypassing the central cause of my amazement; that a judge is appointed based on an ideological bias.



Or are you going to tell me that the Republicans want to wait because they are quite busy at the moment and besides they're worried about Donald Trump and how they will beat ISIS?



Your judges are appointed on the basis of ideology. That in itself is a farce, but one that hardly surprises, given that it occurs in the world's dumbest democracy. They are, as Scalia observed, not there to legislate..but the fact is that legislation has been forwarded to them for a ruling. On his dumbshit principle, any decision that affects law should not be taken but referred back to the legislature.



This asswipe is anti-gay, pro gun and anti abortion. That in itself would be enough to exclude him from ANY judicial hearing on those matters, not just the highest court in your land.



I'm sorry that you feel sick. If I were as dumb, ignorant, blind, egotistical and overbearing as you, I'd feel slightly nauseous when I'm made to look like a fool by an Australian, too.



Need a bucket?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 08:18:10 AM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

That is the exact opposite of democracy.


Your judges are appointed on the basis of ideology. That in itself is a farce, but one that hardly surprises, given that it occurs in the world's dumbest democracy. They are, as Scalia observed, not there to legislate..but the fact is that legislation has been forwarded to them for a ruling. On his dumbshit principle, any decision that affects law should not be taken but referred back to the legislature.



This asswipe is anti-gay, pro gun and anti abortion. That in itself would be enough to exclude him from ANY judicial hearing on those matters, not just the highest court in your land.



I'm sorry that you feel sick. If I were as dumb, ignorant, blind, egotistical and overbearing as you, I'd feel slightly nauseous when I'm made to look like a fool by an Australian, too.



Need a bucket?

 

Wrong again shithead, our judges are nominated on the basis of ideology. They are then vetted and approved on the basis of their legal qualifications and their historical  conduct as it pertains to the law.



Have the intellectual courtesy of getting it right for a change.



I'm not talking about whether or not the Republican controlled Senate has the right to delay approval of a nominee or what rational they may employ. Your attempt at defection of my argument is noted and duly ignored.



Once again the leftard toady (which deep down is what you really are) comes out to play and shows off your level of moronic ineptitude.



I guess you missed where I said Scalia was a strict proponent of constitutional law AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Consitution. Again reading comprehension.....Hard. :laugh3:



Like many Americans, Scalia believed that many issues brought before the supreme court where not constitutional issues and should be left up to the individual states as the framers intended. You like many of the droolers living and breeding out there can't fathom that interpretation of consitutional law is limited to issues found inside the document itself. Regardless of personal feelings and beliefs, Scalia never wavered from that premise no matter what the issue.



The way you flap your gums on this, one would think you are related to Romero.



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.



I believe it was Justice Roberts who stated in his opinion that the pro gay marriage ruling should be celebrated BUT do not celebrate the US Consitution at the same time. Justice Roberts was also of the opinion that gay marriage was not an issue governed in the Consitution and he was correct just as Scalia was.



Justice Ginsberg, who was the political polar opposite of Justice Scalia had nothing but glowing admiration for the man as a professional colleague and a close friend. As much as I do not like to woman's politics, I will take her opinion and description of Scalia over the left-wing smear coming out of the NY pro-Odumbo Times . You can do what your obviously uninformed ass pleases. :laugh3:



Let me explain something to you and try to get it through the ossification of the brain that your advanced age sometimes brings. Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are pushed thru the courts for political purposes. Any favorable supreme court ruling on any of these so-called important issues means one thing......the qualification and distribution of federal taxpayer dollars. In the US special interest groups all have their hands out and they they are all jockeying for a place at the government trough. Making pet hot button issues the "law of the land" guarantees a place at that trough and I for one am sick and tired of seeing the Romero's of this world use the US Consitution are a means to facilitate their fucking ideological greed. I thank the Gods for individuals like Justice Scalia who are there at least as a token road block to this perverted process.



BTW, since when are you worried about someone being anti gay sex? I guess judging from that limp wrist we all saw along with your ugly car, we now have a good idea why. :laugh3:



That last pathetic attempt to counter my argument was the final straw showing that you no longer have the chops to hang with me in a rational argument, (some might say you never had them to begin with). So you go back on ignore where you obviously belong.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: "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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 01:44:45 PM
QuoteSandra Day O'Connor Says Obama Should Get To Replace Justice Scalia



Sandra Day O'Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice appointed by President Ronald Reagan, said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.



O'Connor, in an interview with a Fox affiliate in Phoenix, disagreed with Republican arguments that the next president, and not Obama, should get to fill the high court vacancy.



"I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let's get on with it," said O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court.



O'Connor, 85, agreed it's unusual for a Supreme Court vacancy to open in an election year, which "creates much talk around the thing that isn't necessary."



But she said the president still has an important responsibility to fulfill.



"You just have to pick the best person you can under the circumstances, as the appointing authority must do," she said. "It's an important position and one that we care about as a nation and as a people. And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It's hard."



//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia_us_56c5313be4b0c3c55053c6d9

The President is supposed to perform his presidential duty? What a libtard!
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 18, 2016, 02:13:28 PM
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"
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 02:23:45 PM
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!
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 18, 2016, 02:26:48 PM
Quote .... 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
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 03:05:07 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "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.  :laugh3:



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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 03:14:33 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"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". :laugh3:
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"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"?  :laugh:



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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 03:26:36 PM
Does the US Constitution deal with liberty and equality?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 03:31:02 PM
Quote from: "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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 03:53:20 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 03:58:27 PM
Claiming "homophobia" is a PC silencing tactic Romero.  Tsk tsk.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 03:58:56 PM
Quote from: "RW"Does the US Constitution deal with liberty and equality?

Does it or not?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 04:16:02 PM
Quote from: "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.

:laugh: 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!
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 04:19:33 PM
Quote from: "RW"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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 04:22:49 PM
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "RW"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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 04:31:09 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "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.

:laugh: 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.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 04:35:59 PM
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "RW"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.

So it deals with limited areas of Liberty and equality?  You sure about that?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 04:37:07 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "RW"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.

Stop being a PC asshole and keep making valid points rather than degrading into this shit.  It makes you look like you're losing and on this one I don't think you are...yet.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 04:41:41 PM
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "RW"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.

Stop being a PC asshole and keep making valid points rather than degrading into this shit.  It makes you look like you're losing and on this one I don't think you are...yet.

You shut the fuck up. If you don't like it, don't read it. I'm not here for your sensitivity training. I'll say whatever I want, bitch.



ac_smile
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 04:42:10 PM
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "RW"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.

So it deals with limited areas of Liberty and equality?  You sure about that?


No, the 14th Amend. deals specifically with liberty and equality as it pertains to citizenship. Marriage rights are an interpretation of the 14th and an extension of the "Bill of Rights".



The right to marriage as a qualifier for equal protection under the law, based on sex, is not specifically addressed. It is an implied right open to interpretation.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 04:50:56 PM
That's how law works though - it evolves as the need arises because society evolves.  To say that the terms of Liberty and equality are wrongfully inclusive is a straw man arguement.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 04:55:03 PM
Quote from: "RW"That's how law works though - it evolves as the need arises because society evolves.  To say that the terms of Liberty and equality are wrongfully inclusive is a straw man arguement.


In its truest form Constitutional law is not supposed to work that way. It's either constitutional or its not.



Opening it to interpretation to suit a perticular segment of society is political pandering and opens the gate for ideological bias.



Most constitutional law scholars agree that the same sex ruling was uncharted waters and it ended up as a ruling based almost solely on opinion and ideology. Any constitutional aspect came secondary.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 05:06:13 PM
Most?  



Our "constitution" works a lot differently in that it only opposes limits to liberty, equality, etc as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society which makes same sex marriage very much a constitutional issue.  



I don't see gay marriage as an ideology but an issue of equality.  I don't give a fuck what reason you supply for why humans marry.  A restriction on legally recognized pair bonding, which comes with legally afforded rights, is NOT a justifiable restriction to freedom.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 05:59:01 PM
Quote from: "Renee"
 

Wrong again shithead, our judges are nominated on the basis of ideology. They are then vetted and approved on the basis of their legal qualifications and their historical  conduct as it pertains to the law.



Have the intellectual courtesy of getting it right for a change.


Girl, I suggest you seek the services of a surgeon, and get that massive chip removed from your shoulder. Then you may be able to discuss, rather than disparage on the basis of the impulse to just be contrary for its own sake. And when we peel away the vitriol and virulence, we're left with...not much at all really.



If you would be so kind as to address the point, rather than your everyman's knowledge of your legal system, perhaps we may arrive at a point where you might either admit support for this perversion, or agree that appointing judiciary along ideological grounds rather than their record on jurisprudence is farcical.



On the other hand, by all means maintain your pathetic rage in lieu of reasoned argument and maintain the general perception that American's are incapable of intellectual engagement, and would rather kill or abuse what they don't understand.



Just a tip; abusing and insulting me is utterly impotent, and rather demonstrates that the less you know, the more churlish you become.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 18, 2016, 06:14:21 PM
You keep  misquoting and / or  repeating the same old
QuoteYou 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".
Yes. Exactly as I have said several times  .. still do ... and your point is?


 
Quote Since when is something that hasn't happened "standard practice"?  
 Since when can choosing to not do something for 80 years  not be "standard practice"?  .. especially when it is .

Exactly as I have said it is several times .. .. and your point is?


QuoteIt's actual standard practice for the President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. It's actual standard practice for Congress to consider the nominee.
 Exactly as I have said several times .. .. and your point is?


Quote It's never been standard practice for the President to hold off and wait for the next President.
Exactly as I have said several times ..  ... in fact it is standard practice for the President to appoint .. and your point is?



I also said what you deliberately avoid and dance around  like it was the plague - "the senate does not have to approve in any set time frame and in fact has not done so for a nominee of the last yr of a presidency in 80 yrs"



Clearly you don't like the facts as they are and are trying to slither around them with some repetitive silly game ...  but the facts are as they are
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 06:18:33 PM
Just because it has t been done doesn't mean it can't, shouldn't or won't (no I didn't say that last one with a straight face.)
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 18, 2016, 06:20:42 PM
of course, which is why I didn't say it won't



I was just stating the history as a quite likely avenue for the future, not predicting  the future
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"of course, which is why I didn't say it won't



I was just stating the history, not predicting  the future

There's no way in hell the senate will put a nominee through.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 18, 2016, 06:29:14 PM
prolly so  ... but not a certainty till its actually over. The current GOP old school have done some things just as stupid / weak of late and so I never trust their protecting their voters / promised agenda when push comes to shove like their opponents always do



Many others feel likewise, hence the current 2 top runners raison d'être
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 06:37:26 PM
You are still describing an utterly farcical circumstance.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 06:44:18 PM
The only person this should be of any interest to is Renee.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 06:53:01 PM
Renee seems more interested in abuse and rancour. Its time she grew up.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 18, 2016, 07:35:39 PM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"Renee seems more interested in abuse and rancour. Its time she grew up.


That's rich coming from you of all people. You live for "rancor" because it feeds your anti-US sentiment.



The truth is, the point you've been trying to make or not make; is a kind of "pushmepullyou" mythical animal.



On one hand you deride the SCOTUS for being ideologically bound and on the other you attack a man who was a strict constructionist who rejected ideology in favor of following the written text of the Consitution in the strictest possibly way.



You can't have your argument both ways. Your own position is in conflict with itself.



Until you get your shit straight, I or anyone else here cannot take anything you say seriously..... Now is that "rancour"....I don't think so, it's just an obvious statement of fact. You either have no idea what you are talking about or you are purposely muddying the waters.



Which is it? :confused1:
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 08:32:00 PM
This man used his "strict constitutionalism", as you call it, to blockade changes as a result of the world changing.



It is within his power, for example, to adjudge that the possession of firearms as enshrined in the Constitution is not consistent with the way in which human society has evolved, and that the people who made that determination could not have foreseen the terrifying world we created.



But if I read these so called leftist rags correctly, he would rather rely on "the Constitution is a sacred and hallowed text that mere men cannot undo" than make a judgment that benefits society as a whole.



Like I said, don't take MY word for it...I don't make this shit up just to annoy you. I can do that without the need for fiction.



He did not reject ideology, he applied it, thus;



"In life, Scalia insisted that the content of constitutional law must be determined by the "original public meaning" of the text adopted by the framers some two hundred and forty years ago, and should be unaffected by contemporary politics; "



Scalia seems to want it both ways; he accepts that the engineers of the Constitution were correct in embracing firearms ownership to be in the national interest, yet when it came to gay marriage your founding fathers could not have foreseen this social development.



So, gun laws should NOT be affected by contemporary politics, but gay marriage SHOULD??



As a footnote;



"Scalia's vision of a Constitution that was somehow immune from the contending forces that shape—and indeed, constitute—us as an evolving nation was an illusion. And it has never been more dramatically refuted than by the political battles that have already broken out in the days since his death."



http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/15/justice-antonin-scalia-constitution-in-politics/



So, it seems that my "anti-American" perspective is shared by some of your fellow countrymen. What does it say about them?



Before you rant and rage on me as a person, have the integrity to address the issue. If you want to piss on me and see what happens, there is a place called Reject Rodeo where I'd be happy to accommodate your ineffectual slurs in kind for the entertainment of the masses.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 08:37:24 PM
QuoteRepublicans Now Say Their Supreme Court Obstruction Is For The Good Of The Nominee



Republicans have a new talking point for why they refuse to move forward on any Supreme Court nominee this year: They are doing it for the sake of the nominee.



Since news broke of Justice Antonin Scalia's death Saturday, Republicans have lined up behind Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has promised not to even consider a nominee put forth by President Barack Obama. He wants to allow the next president to chose a candidate, hoping a Republican will win the White House.



GOP senators have tried to point to historical precedent to back up their stance -- even though there's no evidence that presidents forgo nominating candidates in their final year.



Now, recalcitrant Republicans are shifting their arguments and trying to convince Democrats that because the hearings are doomed to fail, making someone go through them would be unnecessarily cruel.



"I think that hearing would end up very politicized. And I don't think it would be fair to the nominee," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Wednesday during a CNN town hall event.



"It would be a denigration of that person's reputation not by Republicans -- I think more by Democrats than Republicans," added Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) during an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday.



Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) made a similar argument to The Associated Press on Thursday, although his concern was over putting the American public through what would, he believed, be nothing more than a charade.



In other words, because the GOP is committed to trying to stop Obama from changing the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court in the wake of the conservative Scalia's death, the only outcome is one that would be personally damaging to the nominee. The credentials of the president's nominee are irrelevant, and will only be tarnished by Senate hearings.



//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-supreme-court_us_56c62cbfe4b0928f5a6b41c4

Awwww. Republicans just want to be fair to the nominee they promised not to be fair to. What a bunch of softies! Nothing political about their politicization at all!
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 08:42:20 PM
Romero, can you think for yourself or do you let the editorial staff at Huffington Post do it for you?



Obama will pick a nominee that suits his politics. The Republican controlled senate will confirm or deny it for political reasons just like a Democratic senate did with Robert Bork.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 08:43:53 PM
That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".



Then they have the gall to say Scalia was a good judge because he did what the Right expected of him.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 08:57:14 PM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".



Then they have the gall to say Scalia was a good judge because he did what the Right expected of him.

Scalia was a good judge, but Obama would never have nominated him.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 18, 2016, 09:40:00 PM
Quote from: "Herman"Romero, can you think for yourself or do you let the editorial staff at Huffington Post do it for you?



Obama will pick a nominee that suits his politics. The Republican controlled senate will confirm or deny it for political reasons just like a Democratic senate did with Robert Bork.

Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who posts as many articles as I do. Do you really expect me to rewrite those Republican statements for no reason? You would just take me for my word and not want a source?



You can criticise me again when you stop posting your own articles. I'm not the only one.



Bork was well known for wanting to roll back civil rights. Some Republicans voted against his nomination too.



Blocking a nomination isn't a surprise for both sides and isn't the issue in this case. It's unheard of to expect a President not to nominate, and unheard of to block a nomination without even knowing who it is.



The Republicans wouldn't be acting like this if it were a Republican President, would they?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 09:40:13 PM
How is your determination that he was a good judge arrived at?



From my readings, he was an idealistic, conservative, old-school-is-the-best school dinosaur.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 18, 2016, 09:46:45 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Herman"Romero, can you think for yourself or do you let the editorial staff at Huffington Post do it for you?



Obama will pick a nominee that suits his politics. The Republican controlled senate will confirm or deny it for political reasons just like a Democratic senate did with Robert Bork.

Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who posts as many articles as I do. Do you really expect me to rewrite those Republican statements for no reason? You would just take me for my word and not want a source?



You can criticise me again when you stop posting your own articles. I'm not the only one.



Bork was well known for wanting to roll back civil rights. Some Republicans voted against his nomination too.



Blocking a nomination isn't a surprise for both sides and isn't the issue in this case. It's unheard of to expect a President not to nominate, and unheard of to block a nomination without even knowing who it is.



The Republicans wouldn't be acting like this if it were a Republican President, would they?


I would also say that my position would be the same, regardless of the ideology in play. Left or right, appointing referees (which is what judges are) with built in bias, based on that bias agreeing with the government of the day, is insane.



I see that the President is also declining to attend the funeral of the dearly departed. He must really dislike him.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 09:53:13 PM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".

BINGO
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 09:54:25 PM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"How is your determination that he was a good judge arrived at?



From my readings, he was an idealistic, conservative, old-school-is-the-best school dinosaur.

He's also dead.



Moving on... ????
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: "Romero"[

Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who posts as many articles as I do. Do you really expect me to rewrite those Republican statements for no reason? You would just take me for my word and not want a source?



You can criticise me again when you stop posting your own articles. I'm not the only one.



Bork was well known for wanting to roll back civil rights. Some Republicans voted against his nomination too.



Blocking a nomination isn't a surprise for both sides and isn't the issue in this case. It's unheard of to expect a President not to nominate, and unheard of to block a nomination without even knowing who it is.



The Republicans wouldn't be acting like this if it were a Republican President, would they?

You lying effeminate sack of excrement. Herm doesn't need Salon, HP, (Don't)ThinkPhaggots, TYEE, commondreams or all these other California financed bullshit leftist opinion rags to say what's on his fucking mind...you know, like a real fucking man does.  You should try using ur brain sometime you lazy little twerp.



CC,



Kennedy was nominated in 87(non-election year) by Reagan, but confirmed in Feb 88(election year). However, Kennedy's nomination came only after Reagan's first nominee was REJECTED by the senate in 87.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 18, 2016, 10:39:39 PM
I think the posts need a person's perspective or comment with it to make it valid.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 18, 2016, 10:42:12 PM
Quote from: "RW"I think the posts need a person's perspective or comment with it IMHO.

Homoero is too fucking lazy to have opinions of his own. Lots of ideological sites will provide that for him.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 18, 2016, 11:20:47 PM
The practice of constant copy / paste with little and usually no personal comment is lazy and defeats the good purpose of growing a good discussion forum
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 18, 2016, 11:29:35 PM
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".

BINGO
 What you guys are not aware of so can't allow is that BOTH parties are in the position that if they give an inch the other party will take advantage happily and allow no quarter in return



I'm not defending the practice, I'm just saying what it is.



if positions were reversed  we would see the same or worse.. ... . make that WHEN positions WERE reversed we SAW the same and  worse
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 19, 2016, 12:11:42 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".

BINGO
 What you guys are not aware of so can't allow is that BOTH parties are in the position that if they give an inch the other party will take advantage happily and allow no quarter in return



I'm not defending the practice, I'm just saying what it is.



if positions were reversed  we would see the same or worse.. ... . make that WHEN positions WERE reversed we SAW the same and  worse

I can see that plain as day.  It's ridiculous and counter productive.  Throw the media into the mix and you've got a huge mess.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 12:17:09 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"The practice of constant copy / paste with little and usually no personal comment is lazy and defeats the good purpose of growing a good discussion forum

I will look up Huffington Post myself if I want to read their editorials. But the purpose here is to discuss the issues.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 12:19:52 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".

BINGO
 What you guys are not aware of so can't allow is that BOTH parties are in the position that if they give an inch the other party will take advantage happily and allow no quarter in return



I'm not defending the practice, I'm just saying what it is.



if positions were reversed  we would see the same or worse.. ... . make that WHEN positions WERE reversed we SAW the same and  worse

When it comes to the SCOTUS, both parties put politics first.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 19, 2016, 12:28:00 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".

BINGO
 What you guys are not aware of so can't allow is that BOTH parties are in the position that if they give an inch the other party will take advantage happily and allow no quarter in return



I'm not defending the practice, I'm just saying what it is.



if positions were reversed  we would see the same or worse.. ... . make that WHEN positions WERE reversed we SAW the same and  worse


I think we all get that. I don't believe Romero is denying it, either...just pointing out the duplicity of the shrill squawking Republicans.



The whole situation sucks and is utterly corrupt. Worse, its overt corruption.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 19, 2016, 12:56:29 AM
I guess I'm a tad more fair and realistic than he and yourself. I'm pointing out the duplicity of the shrill squawking Democrats & Republicans



Actually, once a nominee is refused this year, THEN you will see how loud the hypocritical squawking gets .... squawking from the same big 2, O & C who themselves have both filibustered and voted to filibuster  to stop nominees ... in essence what the other guys are likely to do this year .... in fact they have both started already



The boot is on the other foot now



As for your high and mighty spiel c/w lots of feigned outrage,  it is all just lowly opportunism .. a perceived chance to play holier than thou    .... and to again dun the US ... what you see as a double win

While the system you described sounds good and has good intentions, human nature always wins out. Humans cannot stop themselves from favoring what their core being believes / cares about  no matter how hard any one tries to stop it from happening. I confess it would be true for me and while you may deny it with loud screaming, it would be true for you
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 01:10:02 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"I guess I'm a tad more fair and realistic than he and yourself. I'm pointing out the duplicity of the shrill squawking Democrats & Republicans



Actually, once a nominee is refused this year, THEN you will see how loud the hypocritical squawking gets .... squawking from the same big 2, O & C who themselves have both filibustered and voted to filibuster  to stop nominees ... in essence what the other guys are likely to do this year .... in fact they have both started already



The boot is on the other foot now

The boot is on the other foot for the Democrats.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 19, 2016, 01:42:48 AM
Off topic? Not really. Not is integrity is the issue. It gets crappier than the court thing for some's heros.



 Further to how the other side plays the overall game, from 30% behind not long ago, slowly improving daily, Sanders today took a 3% lead that will NOT win him the nomination ... . if he gets t o a 10 + % lead it  will not win him enough delegates to win the nomination



You see, these "good guys for  the people" have rigged the system / protected it from "outsiders"  by having 100s of "super deligates .... insiders who will vote for insiders ..... plenty of them to defeat  the votes of the people even when the people have loudly shown their choice
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 01:45:14 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"It gets crappier for some's heros. Further to how the other side plays the overall game, from 30% behind not long ago, slowly improving daily, Sanders today took a 3% lead that will NOT win him the nomination ... . a 10 % lead will not win him enough delegates to win the nomination



You see, these "good guys" have rigged the system / protected it from "outsiders"  by having 100s of "super deligates .... insiders who will vote for insiders ..... plenty to defeat  the votes of the people even when the people have loudly shown their choice

That electoral college thing for choosing candidates and the president is bullshit.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 19, 2016, 01:51:38 AM
Well, at least for one group, you get delegates proportional to the vote of the people. Most delegates from the voters = win



For the other group, there are enough appointed cornball hack "super delegates" to overide even a large win by someone on the outside of the cronies



We are witnessing it today .. he wins NH by a large margin, the cronie's biatch gets many more delegates. He cannot win
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 01:54:42 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"Well, at least for one group, you get delegates proportional to the vote of the people. Most delegates from the voters = win



For the other group, there are enough appointed cornball hack "super delegates" to overide even a large win by someone on the outside of the cronies



We are witnessing it today .. he wins NH by a large margin, the cronie's biatch gets many more delegates. He cannot win

Can you post a link about this ceec. I lived in the states and I would like to read this.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 19, 2016, 02:04:19 AM
Not without searching - oops, found one from AP



Even When Bernie Wins, It's Still Rigged For Hillary Because Of Super Delegates



AP - Superdelegates help Clinton expand her lead despite NH loss (//http)



 So much for Bernie Sanders' big win in New Hampshire.



Since then, Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 more superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention, dwarfing Sanders' gain from the New Hampshire primary, according to a new Associated Press survey. Sanders has added just 11 superdelegate endorsements.



If these party insiders continue to back Clinton overwhelmingly — and they can change their minds — Sanders would have to win the remaining primaries by a landslide just to catch up. He would have to roll up big margins because every Democratic contest awards delegates in proportion to the vote, so even the loser can get some.



After the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count.



And this is the self proclaimed "party of the people"  :laugh: ... And no, the dastardly other guys have NO such thing



"Thank you God !!"

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-18-at-7.25.55-PM.png%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/%20...%20.55-PM.png%22%3Ehttp://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Screen-Shot-2016-02-18-at-7.25.55-PM.png%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 19, 2016, 10:56:55 AM
Quote from: "cc la femme"Well, at least for one group, you get delegates proportional to the vote of the people. Most delegates from the voters = win



For the other group, there are enough appointed cornball hack "super delegates" to overide even a large win by someone on the outside of the cronies



We are witnessing it today .. he wins NH by a large margin, the cronie's biatch gets many more delegates. He cannot win

I never understood that system of party candidate voting.  That makes NO sense in a democracy.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 19, 2016, 12:25:24 PM
Yes. It is wonky. Each state, based on population gets a number of delegates to represent it. So candidates are vying for delegates based on the % of the state's vote they get ... all to be added up at the end



Sad for the Bernie supporters, he is now in the lead nationally % of vote wise but his party has these ludicrous "insider" superdelagates who are chosen by insiders and added on to the delegates actually won. - it is designed to keep "a wrong person" out should the voters be so daring as to pick someone not on the inside



Of course most of those insider super delagates / part hacks  will on the big day vote for insider Hilary. So if Bernie should command a considerable majority of the voters, he will still lose and  there will be hell to pay. His supporters are invested emotionally to the extreme and won't take it lying down. It will get interesting if Bernie keeps winning and commands a majority of the public's votes ... and he may because his support has steadily grown and yesterday he took the countywide  lead
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 19, 2016, 12:54:49 PM
Hillary can't win a presidential race though.



In the meantime, Obama has a Justice to find.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 19, 2016, 01:34:51 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Romero"
Pretty hypocritical coming from someone who posts as many articles as I do. Do you really expect me to rewrite those Republican statements for no reason? You would just take me for my word and not want a source?



You can criticise me again when you stop posting your own articles. I'm not the only one.



Bork was well known for wanting to roll back civil rights. Some Republicans voted against his nomination too.



Blocking a nomination isn't a surprise for both sides and isn't the issue in this case. It's unheard of to expect a President not to nominate, and unheard of to block a nomination without even knowing who it is.



The Republicans wouldn't be acting like this if it were a Republican President, would they?

You lying effeminate sack of excrement. Herm doesn't need Salon, HP, (Don't)ThinkPhaggots, TYEE, commondreams or all these other California financed bullshit leftist opinion rags to say what's on his fucking mind...you know, like a real fucking man does.  You should try using ur brain sometime you lazy little twerp.

You mean I should say what's on my mind as in the post of mine you quoted?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 02:35:45 PM
^Wow, the lazy little effeminate cocksucker posted something without an editorial from HP in it. You must be just exhausted.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 19, 2016, 03:23:40 PM
Quote from: "Shen Li"^Wow, the lazy little effeminate cocksucker posted something without an editorial from HP in it. You must be just exhausted.

You post articles without any personal comment all the time. Probably more than I do.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 03:27:29 PM
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Shen Li"^Wow, the lazy little effeminate cocksucker posted something without an editorial from HP in it. You must be just exhausted.

You post articles without any personal comment all the time. Probably more than I do.

You do it ALL the time and like CC said what's the point of that.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 19, 2016, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"That simply compounds the lunacy.



It becomes even more unbelievable as each day rolls by.



If I interpret correctly, the Right is saying to the President "Don't bother nominating, because even though we don't know who you will choose, we'll bounce him or her anyway, and they will feel rejected...not because they aren't a good Justice, but because he or she ain't right enough for us".

BINGO
 What you guys are not aware of so can't allow is that BOTH parties are in the position that if they give an inch the other party will take advantage happily and allow no quarter in return



I'm not defending the practice, I'm just saying what it is.



if positions were reversed  we would see the same or worse.. ... . make that WHEN positions WERE reversed we SAW the same and  worse

I can see that plain as day.  It's ridiculous and counter productive.  Throw the media into the mix and you've got a huge mess.


Yeah but it will give you guys something to talk about for weeks.



Too bad your own political scene is like watching paint dry.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 19, 2016, 06:19:52 PM
Yeah.



If only we had a corrupt, disproportionate, unrepresentative clown show like yours that throws up a delusional billionaire, a lying megalomaniac and a raging socialist as candidates for the highest office in the land.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: reel on February 19, 2016, 06:26:21 PM
Quote from: "Renee"
Yeah but it will give you guys something to talk about for weeks.



Too bad your own political scene is like watching paint dry.


I'm quite happy not to have a political scene that is an absolute spectacle.  I'll take well-reasoned, considerate, boring people to run things.  The clowns can stay at the circus.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 06:32:14 PM
I prefer some things about the American political system. Ballot initiatives, the separation of the executive and legislative branches for example. The vast sums of money it takes to run a successful campaign is obscene. That is much worse than the theatre of these primaries.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 19, 2016, 06:59:40 PM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"Yeah.



If only we had a corrupt, disproportionate, unrepresentative clown show like yours that throws up a delusional billionaire, a lying megalomaniac and a raging socialist as candidates for the highest office in the land.


Yeah keep playing musical prime ministers. What are you up to now, 3 in as many years? Going for 4 anytime soon?



I suppose I would actually know the answer to those questions if it was somehow of any consequence or better yet, worth giving a fuck.



BTW, you know you're a real bipolar asshole. Wow you're back on the shit list. Didn't even last 24 hours. :001_rolleyes:
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 19, 2016, 07:00:17 PM
I had said gop does not have chosen rather than elected delegates



For Republicans, there are generally three unpledged delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. However, according to the RNC communications director Sean Spicer, convention rules obligate those RNC members to vote according to the result of primary elections held in their states.

Thus the vote is entirely representative of the vote of the people



So, it is still true that the gop voters dictate who all delegates support - whereas the proclaimed  "party of the people"  have 712 unpledged insider hacks who of course support insider hacks and totally circumvent the vote of the people. Because elected delegates are proportioned to the vote count, the loser of a state still gets many delegates  

meaning that even with landslide wins in all states it is virtually impossible for anyone other than an insider hack to win
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2016, 07:10:48 PM
Quote from: "cc la femme"I had said gop does not have chosen rather than elected delegates



For Republicans, there are generally three unpledged delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. However, according to the RNC communications director Sean Spicer, convention rules obligate those RNC members to vote according to the result of primary elections held in their states.

Thus the vote is entirely representative of the vote of the people



So, it is still true that the gop voters dictate who all delegates support - whereas the proclaimed  "party of the people"  have 712 unpledged insider hacks who of course support insider hacks and totally circumvent the vote of the people. Because elected delegates are proportioned to the vote count, the loser of a state still gets many delegates  

meaning that even with landslide wins in all states it is virtually impossible for anyone other than an insider hack to win

I lived in the states, but I did not know the two parties chose their leaders differently.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 19, 2016, 09:05:24 PM
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"Yeah.



If only we had a corrupt, disproportionate, unrepresentative clown show like yours that throws up a delusional billionaire, a lying megalomaniac and a raging socialist as candidates for the highest office in the land.


Yeah keep playing musical prime ministers. What are you up to now, 3 in as many years? Going for 4 anytime soon?



I suppose I would actually know the answer to those questions if it was somehow of any consequence or better yet, worth giving a fuck.



BTW, you know you're a real bipolar asshole. Wow you're back on the shit list. Didn't even last 24 hours. :001_rolleyes:


Our Prime Ministers actually govern, unlike your President, who seems beholden to a rabble you call "congress".



And if they fuck up, out they go. Yours get re-elected. George W Bush? Bill Clinton? Richard Nixon?



And I do know I'm a bipolar asshole. Never been a secret. What's your point?



Are you suggesting I've never been OFF your shit list???



 ac_toofunny
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: kiebers on February 23, 2016, 10:54:09 PM
I suppose when it is all said and done they should just listen to Joe Biden....
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 23, 2016, 11:02:54 PM
Quote from: "kiebers"I suppose when it is all said and done they should just listen to Joe Biden....




Joe Biden looks so young there.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2016, 07:00:06 AM
Quote from: "kiebers"I suppose when it is all said and done they should just listen to Joe Biden....





Thank you, crazy Joe......finally you're good for something. :laugh3:
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 24, 2016, 10:54:06 AM
Presidents should do their fucking jobs and fill holes in the SC bench like they're supposed to.



This shouldn't be up for debate.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2016, 11:39:07 AM
Quote from: "RW"Presidents should do their fucking jobs and fill holes in the SC bench like they're supposed to.



This shouldn't be up for debate.


Presidents don't fill the hole, the Senate does. Presidents can only nominate.



That's the way it's been done for over 200 fucking years.



This is an election year and half the senators are on the campaign trail kissing hands and shaking babies. With most of the senators away the legislative agenda is full and the Senate is in recess more than a nonelection year. There is no urgent reason to hold hearings on a nominee. Besides Odumbo has yet to even begin the process.



Election year politics needs to be kept out of this situation as much as possible and that requires that the process of nominating and approving a new supreme court justice be performed after the elections.



I'm really getting tired of the bullshit from people who don't even have a horse in this race. The situation will be rectified one way or the other. It's not like the US government is new at this.



Here's a question....do any of the American members of this forum tell you canucks how to run your country???? Frankly I couldn't give a damn what you guys do BECAUSE it's none of my business. Christ, you people act like you live here and this situation is somehow going to ruin your day. :001_rolleyes:
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 24, 2016, 12:10:31 PM
You know what I meant.  This is called news Renee and what is being said is fair comment.



Here's a better question...would I whine like a fucking baby if an American made a comment about how Canada is run?  No, I wouldn't.  I am not that patriotically defensive about my country's political process or in this case, lack thereof.



In my humble Canadian opinion, there should not be such a media shit show over the President carrying out his duties regardless of it being an election year or not.  I don't care if the president is a Democrat or Republican.



For future record, I will comment on whatever the fuck I feel like commenting on including US politics.  If you have a problem with that, go take it out on one of our older posters hahaha
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2016, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: "RW"You know what I meant.  This is called news Renee and what is being said is fair comment.



Here's a better question...would I whine like a fucking baby if an American made a comment about how Canada is run?  No, I wouldn't.  I am not that patriotically defensive about my country's political process or in this case, lack thereof.



In my humble Canadian opinion, there should not be such a media shit show over the President carrying out his duties regardless of it being an election year or not.  I don't care if the president is a Democrat or Republican.



For future record, I will comment on whatever the fuck I feel like commenting on including US politics.  If you have a problem with that, go take it out on one of our older posters hahaha


I'm not being defensive. I'm just trying to reconcile in my mind why there is a fixation on US politics especially if it effects no one outside the US. When it comes to this forum it's like the US is under a microscope, FFS.



Conversely, we here in the US do not give one single fuck one way or the other what you do up there on your political front. When it comes down to it, the WORLD doesn't care if you choose your leaders thru some kind of elective process or via a radio call in show similar to the way concert tickets are given away. But for some reason, anything that happens south of your border flips your collective busybody, bullshit switch. And don't give me this fucking crap that the reason is because it's "news". Let's call it what it is shall we, it's just another excuse to wag your fingers at something happening in the US that doesn't meet your approval.



Just answer this.....what is it to you when or how the next SC justice gets appointed? Is it going to make a difference to you, does it affect your life?........My guess would be "No". Then you can explain to me why this is "news" for people outside the US to fixate upon.



The "media shit show" has nothing to do with the process. It's there solely to fuel partisanship. The process of selecting a new supreme court justice will take place with or without it and ONLY when the executive and legislative branches of the US government are in a position to do so. The media noise is nothing but a sideshow for fools to feed upon.



BTW, don't tell me who to take my shit out on. I'll punch anyone I fucking please. If I want to be a dickhead I'll just do it. I don't need your permission. I'll post what I want and where I want and how I want, bitch. ac_biggrin











.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 24, 2016, 02:54:56 PM
Typical American bullshit.  Newsflash Renee.  The US pukes its political agenda all over the goddamn world and you sit there wondering why we are so interested in what goes on in your country.  You guys play world police, have veto power in world governance, work at setting global policy and yet you sit there bitching about how the rest of us take interest in what goes on within your borders.  How fucking myopic and clueless can you be?



And I have to apologise that Canadian politics isn't nearly as much of ridiculous shit show as yours is.  I know this because I get more US channels up here on cable than I do Canadian ones.  If you don't like your news rubbed in the face of everyone else, take it up with your greedy, twisted media rather than getting up my Canadian ass about it.



As for permission, it seems anyone who isn't American needs your permission to discuss US matters.  Why is that?  You have a monopoly on US discussions?  If you don't give a fuck what anyone else has to say, stop acting like a butt hurt bitch every time a non-American mentions your fucking country.



 ac_biggrin
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2016, 05:04:30 PM
Okay, show me how our internal politics such as this supreme court issue is puking our agenda all over world. Show me where this issue has anything to do with world governance. The truth is, and let's not fuck around; it's the internal squabbling within the US gov that interests you nosy neighbors the most. It's our soap opera like escapades that you people can't ignore. Why is that? There are other crazier things happening in the internal politics of other countries but that doesn't seem to interest you. Why is that? Your defensive indignation on being called out on this issue has me genuinely curious.



Granted our foreign policy is worth criticizing; it sucks, it impacts a lot more than just the US. Believe me no one more than me would love to see the US change how it deals with the rest of the world. I would love to see our foreign policy go back to where it was pre WWII. But that's not ever going to happen. The power vacuum it would leave in its wake would be worse than when the British empire finally breathed it's last at the 1950s.



Also lets not kid ourselves, the entire west is tied to the US in almost every way imaginable. The interests of almost every country in the west align with the interests of the US. In todays world every one of you wants at least a small piece of the pie that Uncle Sam has his fingers in. Deny that.... and it would be a bald faced lie.



BTW, you should probably be thankful that you have so many US news outlets. Because let's face it.....without them you would have nothing to bitch about except maybe the price of poontang or poutine or whatever that nasty glop is called. Also since you sound so upset by the antics of the US media machine, maybe changing the channel is an option for you. That's what I do when it gets to be too much. You do have buttons on your remote or your TV don't you?



Furthermore you don't need my permission to discuss issues and events in the US; I never said or even indicated that you did. All I ask is that you have the courtesy to remove your head from your ass before doing so.



You still haven't answered my question. All I got was defensive indignation and a harangue eluding to how intrusive US foreign policy is. I can appreciate your feelings on this but I think you need to look at the issue at hand from my perspective as well. To me you are that guy that likes to look into his or her neighbors windows to see what they are doing. Truth is, that guy is an annoying mother fucker. ac_biggrin
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 24, 2016, 05:43:09 PM
Your questions:  Just answer this.....what is it to you when or how the next SC justice gets appointed? Is it going to make a difference to you, does it affect your life?........My guess would be "No". Then you can explain to me why this is "news" for people outside the US to fixate upon.



I take an interest in law and legal proceedings on both sides of the border.  Is it going to have a profound impact on my life?  No.  It is just a matter of interest like many things in my life.  Are you suggesting people shouldn't have interests outside their borders?



This Supreme Court issue was on Canadian news.  I believe I also caught it on British world news.  How the US governs itself has a lot to do with world governance.  If you guys can't get your governance shit together on your own soil, Wtf business do you have on influencing other countries'?



Personally, I can do without the rightie/leftie shit show.  I think yours is more ridiculous than most.  It's kind of like watching a train wreck - a very expensive train wreck.  But to answer you, the US is our closest partner in many respects.  What happens in the US directly affects as at an alarming rate.  You aren't a fucking island, eh.



I'm also pretty sure I'm not the one with my head up my ass, nor am I the one acting like a fucking baby every time someone mentions my country.  I'm not that insecure.



As for looking into other people's windows, maybe you guys should try it once in a while.  I promise I'll put clothes on :D
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2016, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: "RW"Your questions:  Just answer this.....what is it to you when or how the next SC justice gets appointed? Is it going to make a difference to you, does it affect your life?........My guess would be "No". Then you can explain to me why this is "news" for people outside the US to fixate upon.



I take an interest in law and legal proceedings on both sides of the border.  Is it going to have a profound impact on my life?  No.  It is just a matter of interest like many things in my life.  Are you suggesting people shouldn't have interests outside their borders?



This Supreme Court issue was on Canadian news.  I believe I also caught it on British world news.  How the US governs itself has a lot to do with world governance.  If you guys can't get your governance shit together on your own soil, Wtf business do you have on influencing other countries'?



Personally, I can do without the rightie/leftie shit show.  I think yours is more ridiculous than most.  It's kind of like watching a train wreck - a very expensive train wreck.  But to answer you, the US is our closest partner in many respects.  What happens in the US directly affects as at an alarming rate.  You aren't a fucking island, eh.



I'm also pretty sure I'm not the one with my head up my ass, nor am I the one acting like a fucking baby every time someone mentions my country.  I'm not that insecure.



As for looking into other people's windows, maybe you guys should try it once in a while.  I promise I'll put clothes on :D


Fair enough answer but if I were you I wouldn't worry so much on whether we can get our shit right. Not to be condescending but we have been at this "governing ourselves" thing a little longer than you guys and guess what.....we are still here and with the same form of government we started out with. :laugh3: Shit we even survived a 4 year civil war and the federal government is still intact so don't you worry about us.



Look, I'm not trying to stop you from taking an interest in US politics, I'm just curious why you find the US political process so fascinating. It's not like we have fist fights during our legislative procedures or perpetrate obscene verbal attacks on opposing representatives like in other so called civilized countries. Hell, we don't even elect former porn stars to high office. I'm still not sure why issues taking place in the US that have little or no impact on you or anyone else outside the US should be of interest.



 On this issue and thread alone you stated your point of view multiple times. No offense but I think we all got it a few pages back that you think this issue is a circus. But the reasons why nominations of this nature are not done during partisan election years has been explained. I'm sorry that your opinion differs or you dont understand why but the political reality and reasons behind it trump (no pun intended) what you or I think.



The reality is both sides of the political aisle have been caught agreeing that the process of nominating a supreme court justice should not be done in an election year and there are valid reasons for it. The number one reason is the avoidance of seemingly partsian politics. Right now polls show that a majority of American people are not happy with the direction the country is taking. It is only common sense to wait and see how the up coming presidential election shakes out before a nominee is brought before Senate. A nomination by the Obama admin will be seen as a perpetuation of a direction that is being rejected by the American people. Secondly, as I touched upon previously, in an election year Congress is in recess more so than in a non-election year. Truth is unless a nominee is thrown before the senate in the next month, there will probably not be enough time to devote to confirmation hearings before the summer recess and the final fall campaign push. And before you say that they have plenty of time, let us remember that even in the best of situations the wheels of government move very slowly.



As far as the US not being an island goes.....I think I already stated that pretty clearly in my previous post. Most western nations are entangled side by side with US interests abroad and in some cases domestically but really, whose fault is that?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 24, 2016, 08:13:51 PM
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "RW"Your questions:  Just answer this.....what is it to you when or how the next SC justice gets appointed? Is it going to make a difference to you, does it affect your life?........My guess would be "No". Then you can explain to me why this is "news" for people outside the US to fixate upon.



I take an interest in law and legal proceedings on both sides of the border.  Is it going to have a profound impact on my life?  No.  It is just a matter of interest like many things in my life.  Are you suggesting people shouldn't have interests outside their borders?



This Supreme Court issue was on Canadian news.  I believe I also caught it on British world news.  How the US governs itself has a lot to do with world governance.  If you guys can't get your governance shit together on your own soil, Wtf business do you have on influencing other countries'?



Personally, I can do without the rightie/leftie shit show.  I think yours is more ridiculous than most.  It's kind of like watching a train wreck - a very expensive train wreck.  But to answer you, the US is our closest partner in many respects.  What happens in the US directly affects as at an alarming rate.  You aren't a fucking island, eh.



I'm also pretty sure I'm not the one with my head up my ass, nor am I the one acting like a fucking baby every time someone mentions my country.  I'm not that insecure.



As for looking into other people's windows, maybe you guys should try it once in a while.  I promise I'll put clothes on :D


Fair enough answer but if I were you I wouldn't worry so much on whether we can get our shit right. Not to be condescending but we have been at this "governing ourselves" thing a little longer than you guys and guess what.....we are still here and with the same form of government we started out with. :laugh3: Shit we even survived a 4 year civil war and the federal government is still intact so don't you worry about us.



Look, I'm not trying to stop you from taking an interest in US politics, I'm just curious why you find the US political process so fascinating. It's not like we have fist fights during our legislative procedures or perpetrate obscene verbal attacks on opposing representatives like in other so called civilized countries. Hell, we don't even elect former porn starts to high office. I'm still not sure why issues taking place in the US that have little or no impact on you or anyone else outside the US should be of interest.



 On this issue and thread alone you stated your point of view multiple times. No offense but I think we all got it a few pages back that you think this issue is a circus. But the reasons why nominations of this nature are not done during partisan election years has been explained. I'm sorry that your opinion differs or you dont understand why but the political reality and reasons behind it trump (no pun intended) what you or I think.



The reality is both sides of the political aisle have been caught agreeing that the process of nominating a supreme court justice should not be done in an election year and there are valid reasons for it. The number one reason is the avoidance of seemingly partsian politics. Right now polls show that a majority of American people are not happy with the direction the country is taking. It is only common sense to wait and see how the up coming presidential election shakes out before a nominee is brought before Senate. A nomination by the Obama admin will be seen as a perpetuation of a direction that is being rejected by the American people. Secondly, as I touched upon previously, in an election year Congress is in recess more so than in a non-election year. Truth is unless a nominee is thrown before the senate in the next month, there will probably not be enough time to devote to confirmation hearings before the summer recess and the final fall campaign push. And before you say that they have plenty of time, let us remember that even in the best of situations the wheels of government move very slowly.



As far as the US not being an island goes.....I think I already stated that pretty clearly in my previous post. Most western nations are entangled side by side with US interests abroad and in some cases domestically but really, whose fault is that?

That would be some nefarious members of Taiwan's legislative yuan..



The Kuomintang party has triad connections.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 24, 2016, 10:28:54 PM
Quote"Renee"

 I'm just curious why you find the US political process so fascinating. I'm still not sure why issues taking place in the US that have little or no impact on you or anyone else outside the US should be of interest.

 

I really don't get the interest in this either. Nominate in an election year, don't nominate, who fucking cares. Certainly shouldn't be anyone who is  not a US passport holder. When you look at the shit that is happening in other Western countries, the US is a sea of stability.  Sweden is being overrun by rapist jihadis and whether Obama nominates or not gets more attention? WTF??
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 24, 2016, 11:52:14 PM
Why do you care what goes on in other countries Shen?  Sweden's rapist problem doesn't affect you.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 25, 2016, 07:52:59 AM
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote"Renee"

 I'm just curious why you find the US political process so fascinating. I'm still not sure why issues taking place in the US that have little or no impact on you or anyone else outside the US should be of interest.

 

I really don't get the interest in this either. Nominate in an election year, don't nominate, who fucking cares. Certainly shouldn't be anyone who is  not a US passport holder. When you look at the shit that is happening in other Western countries, the US is a sea of stability.  Sweden is being overrun by rapist jihadis and whether Obama nominates or not gets more attention? WTF??


Exactly my point but unfortunately some people around here are so fixated on everything the US does that important global issues just have to take a back seat.



But hey, because of this media hyped, political disagreement over when a Supreme Court nomination should put forth, it might be an indication that the US can't govern itself and the sky might fall. :oeudC:



I wonder how the world survived while we wrestled with this same issue on and off throughout or history?  :laugh3: It must have been tough on you guys out there and please accept my heartfelt apologies.  :laugh3:



But I'm not going to begrudge these people their little trips to lala land. If creating an mental image of a train wreck and then labeling as the United States of America feeds their wolf, they are more than welcome to do so. They just need to remember not to get so uppity when they get questioned about the reasoning behind their little obsession.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 25, 2016, 09:58:11 AM
You're not going to bully me out of making comments about American legal/political issues so save the bleating.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 25, 2016, 11:42:51 AM
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote"Renee"

 I'm just curious why you find the US political process so fascinating. I'm still not sure why issues taking place in the US that have little or no impact on you or anyone else outside the US should be of interest.

 

I really don't get the interest in this either. Nominate in an election year, don't nominate, who fucking cares. Certainly shouldn't be anyone who is  not a US passport holder. When you look at the shit that is happening in other Western countries, the US is a sea of stability.  Sweden is being overrun by rapist jihadis and whether Obama nominates or not gets more attention? WTF??


Exactly my point but unfortunately some people around here are so fixated on everything the US does that important global issues just have to take a back seat.



But hey, because of this media hyped, political disagreement over when a Supreme Court nomination should put forth, it might be an indication that the US can't govern itself and the sky might fall. :oeudC:



I wonder how the world survived while we wrestled with this same issue on and off throughout or history?  :laugh3: It must have been tough on you guys out there and please accept my heartfelt apologies.  :laugh3:



But I'm not going to begrudge these people their little trips to lala land. If creating an mental image of a train wreck and then labeling as the United States of America feeds their wolf, they are more than welcome to do so. They just need to remember not to get so uppity when they get questioned about the reasoning behind their little obsession.

I am more concerned if the pond near my condo is full of frogs again this year.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Renee on February 25, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: "RW"You're not going to bully me out of making comments about American legal/political issues so save the bleating.


Now I'm bullying you? Before I was crying.....strange combination.



For the record....I'm not trying to stop you from doing anything. Basically I was just curious as to the motivation behind your interest. Still am....probably always will be...pardon me. ac_unsure
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Romero on February 25, 2016, 02:27:15 PM
QuoteThe Worst Congress Money Can Buy



The Republican Senate's refusal even to consider President Obama's replacement for Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court might finally bring into focus the level of their partisan nihilism. The congressional "dysfunction" trope imposes a false equivalency on the parties and thereby enables Republican obstructionism. But the Senate's blatant action not to allow the president to fill a vacancy on the high court makes their extremism more difficult to gloss over.



The Republican-controlled Congress is not "dysfunctional." It would "function" perfectly well if there were an occupant in the White House who gave the Republicans everything they wanted. With divided government they act like petulant children. Voices in the press decrying "dysfunction" render invisible the corporate oligarchy that has bought off the institution.



Whether attacking Planned Parenthood and women's reproductive rights, trying to privatize everything from the Veterans Administration to the U.S. Postal Service, handing over Social Security to Wall Street, selling off federal lands, obstructing everything President Obama does, or the million other hidden giveaways to banks, corporations, and the National Rifle Association -- all these actions drive home the point that we have the worst Congress money can buy.



There's no limit to the money Washington Republicans are willing to spend on crony capitalism, the military industrial complex, or in subsidies for oil, pharmaceutical, and agribusiness corporations. But when it comes to rebuilding the nation's bridges, roads, and water systems, or programs that benefit working people like paid leave, raising the minimum wage, or subsidized child care, then they start screaming about taxes, "big government," and budget deficits.



But even with all the partisan acrimony, when it comes to maintaining the Empire the "dysfunction" evaporates. Gargantuan "defense" bills sail through the Congress and end up on the president's desk where they're quickly signed into law. A model of legislative efficiency.



//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-worst-congress-money-can-buy_b_9312926.html
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 25, 2016, 03:40:37 PM
^^Is this editorial your opinion too?
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 25, 2016, 06:06:57 PM
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote"Renee"

 I'm just curious why you find the US political process so fascinating. I'm still not sure why issues taking place in the US that have little or no impact on you or anyone else outside the US should be of interest.

 

I really don't get the interest in this either. Nominate in an election year, don't nominate, who fucking cares. Certainly shouldn't be anyone who is  not a US passport holder. When you look at the shit that is happening in other Western countries, the US is a sea of stability.  Sweden is being overrun by rapist jihadis and whether Obama nominates or not gets more attention? WTF??


Exactly my point but unfortunately some people around here are so fixated on everything the US does that important global issues just have to take a back seat.



But hey, because of this media hyped, political disagreement over when a Supreme Court nomination should put forth, it might be an indication that the US can't govern itself and the sky might fall. :oeudC:



I wonder how the world survived while we wrestled with this same issue on and off throughout or history?  :laugh3: It must have been tough on you guys out there and please accept my heartfelt apologies.  :laugh3:



But I'm not going to begrudge these people their little trips to lala land. If creating an mental image of a train wreck and then labeling as the United States of America feeds their wolf, they are more than welcome to do so. They just need to remember not to get so uppity when they get questioned about the reasoning behind their little obsession.

If this is a train wreck, than there's nothing to fear from trains. This is internal US politics and it means to any of us. Hell, I do not think a lot of Americans give two shits.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: RW on February 25, 2016, 06:11:53 PM
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "RW"You're not going to bully me out of making comments about American legal/political issues so save the bleating.


Now I'm bullying you? Before I was crying.....strange combination.



For the record....I'm not trying to stop you from doing anything. Basically I was just curious as to the motivation behind your interest. Still am....probably always will be...pardon me. ac_unsure

Not really when you think about it.



I told you my interest in law.  That and I like to point out media idiocy when I see it.  This is such a non-issue that's been turned into ridiculousness.  I like to make note of those things.



I would ask if that's okay with you but I don't really give a fuck.   ac_biggrin
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 25, 2016, 06:49:32 PM
Quote from: "Herman"Hell, I do not think a lot of Americans give two shits.


And that is the answer to Renee's challenge as to why the rest of the world DOES give a shit.



America proclaimed itself the leader of the free world. That is what their President is often, in fact, called. Its a grand lie. A massive deception that influences the perception of those who lack the wit to examine their claim, and judge its merit.



Were we to take America's so-called "leadership" on face value, we run the grave risk of following its path. Yet that is exactly what many Americans do; they believe in their own propaganda, when by any fair examination,the US is FAR from being a model any country should follow.



By its posturing and boasting, America invites scrutiny. That scrutiny should be made available to all Americans, so that they too know how the world truly sees it, and WHY. I've never met an American who was inhospitable, gregarious and friendly, yet those values seem to break down in the political arena, where corporate and military influences weigh much heavier.



It can only be presumed that either Americans don't have two shits to give, or more likely, their leader don't give two shits what they think. The reality seems clear; Americans have no control over the management of their country.



If they did, the fact that their overseers on political dispute, the Supreme Court, is in fact biased and controlled should fill them with horror. It defies the principle of a justice system complete distinct from the political system. It may also answer the question as to why America remains firmly controlled by a piece of paper hundreds of years old that has no bearing or relevance to the 21st century.



The failure of Americans to think and act to address injustice in their own country, and their unlawful conduct without, virtually commands that the rest of the world tell them what WE think. And many of us see you as a dangerous, scary, corrupt and hypocritical nation, occupied by kind, generous and caring people. Perhaps the greatest national paradox in the world today.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Anonymous on February 26, 2016, 12:16:26 AM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"
Quote from: "Herman"Hell, I do not think a lot of Americans give two shits.


And that is the answer to Renee's challenge as to why the rest of the world DOES give a shit.



America proclaimed itself the leader of the free world. That is what their President is often, in fact, called. Its a grand lie. A massive deception that influences the perception of those who lack the wit to examine their claim, and judge its merit.



Were we to take America's so-called "leadership" on face value, we run the grave risk of following its path. Yet that is exactly what many Americans do; they believe in their own propaganda, when by any fair examination,the US is FAR from being a model any country should follow.



By its posturing and boasting, America invites scrutiny. That scrutiny should be made available to all Americans, so that they too know how the world truly sees it, and WHY. I've never met an American who was inhospitable, gregarious and friendly, yet those values seem to break down in the political arena, where corporate and military influences weigh much heavier.



It can only be presumed that either Americans don't have two shits to give, or more likely, their leader don't give two shits what they think. The reality seems clear; Americans have no control over the management of their country.



If they did, the fact that their overseers on political dispute, the Supreme Court, is in fact biased and controlled should fill them with horror. It defies the principle of a justice system complete distinct from the political system. It may also answer the question as to why America remains firmly controlled by a piece of paper hundreds of years old that has no bearing or relevance to the 21st century.



The failure of Americans to think and act to address injustice in their own country, and their unlawful conduct without, virtually commands that the rest of the world tell them what WE think. And many of us see you as a dangerous, scary, corrupt and hypocritical nation, occupied by kind, generous and caring people. Perhaps the greatest national paradox in the world today.

The entire Western world is fucked and it has fuck all to with who will replace Scalia.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 26, 2016, 06:03:07 AM
Could be worse.



We could be in ASIA!!!
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: easter bunny on February 26, 2016, 08:15:45 PM
What's wrong with this picture?


QuoteDow Chemical Co. said it agreed to pay $835 million to settle an antitrust case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court after Justice Antonin Scalia's death reduced its chances of overturning a jury award.



//http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-26/dow-cites-scalia-s-death-in-settling-urethanes-case-for-835m
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 26, 2016, 08:50:23 PM
Ouch!!!



World's Greatest Democracy in action.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: easter bunny on February 27, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: "Mr Crowley"Ouch!!!



World's Greatest Democracy in action.

Yup. That's part of the reason Trump is winning.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 27, 2016, 05:57:23 PM
I fear you are totally correct.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: cc on February 27, 2016, 06:34:19 PM
I'm unaware of any politicians in the world that run a county well and for the people's wishes.



Most outsiders can't fight the establishment successfully thus lifer  blood sucker politicians with no real world "actually do things" experience stay in power FOR THEMSELVES and do not represent the people's wishes.



This guy has been able to do well despite the establishment fighting him full bore.



I wish we had a country where someone could do that -  I wish we had a person who could  do that.
Title: Re: Justice Scalia leaves opening
Post by: Bricktop on February 27, 2016, 07:11:31 PM
I'm beginning to agree. Although I wouldn't want a Trump, I'd certainly welcome someone breaking the power grip of established political structures.



It will be a wild and scary ride.
Text only | Text with Images