Justice Scalia leaves opening

[Anonymous]

The only person this should be of any interest to is Renee.

[Bricktop]

Renee seems more interested in abuse and rancour. Its time she grew up.

[Renee]

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?

[Bricktop]

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/">http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/15 ... -politics/">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.

[Romero]

Republicans 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">//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!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Bricktop]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Romero]

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?

[Bricktop]

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.

[Bricktop]

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.

[RW]

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

[RW]

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... ????

[Anonymous]

[

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.

[RW]

I think the posts need a person's perspective or comment with it to make it valid.