Justice Scalia dead

It would of been kinda nice if there had been a bit of a pause before it went all political. His body has barely had time to get cold. Course it couldn't happen being who he was and where we are now...
 
BedellBrave said:
Sure they would and should.
Click to expand...

Why are you and others speaking as something as fact when there has never been precedent of it happening before this time where all of a sudden I hear the same group that tell me they "love the constitution" are the ones saying it should sit vacant for a year? Why aren't they going to do their constitutional duty of confirming the justices that Obama was constitutionally and elected to do?

It's bull**** for either party ever to say it should leave a seat on the ****ing Supreme Court vacant for a year
 
BedellBrave said:
It would of been kinda nice if there had been a bit of a pause before it went all political. His body has barely had time to get cold. Course it couldn't happen being who he was and where we are now...
Click to expand...

To quote him

"Get over it"
 
goldfly said:
Why are you and others speaking as something as fact when there has never been precedent of it happening before this time where all of a sudden I hear the same group that tell me they "love the constitution" are the ones saying it should sit vacant for a year? Why aren't they going to do their constitutional duty of confirming the justices that Obama was constitutionally and elected to do?

It's bull**** for either party ever to say it should leave a seat on the ****ing Supreme Court vacant for a year
Click to expand...

Don't get so wound up gold. If you think the Ds wouldn't be doing the same thing, then you've just become another complete homer.
 
BedellBrave said:
Don't get so wound up gold. If you think the Ds wouldn't be doing the same thing, then you've just become another complete homer.
Click to expand...

I'm sitting here telling you it would be bull**** for either party to do that

And I'm the homer?

Ok
 
goldfly said:
I'm sitting here telling you it would be bull**** for either party to do that

And I'm the homer?

Ok
Click to expand...

And I'm saying it wouldn't be that for either party to say what the Rs are saying in these circumstances. It's not going to happen. Getting into a hissy is silly. And acting as if the Ds wouldn't do it is silly as well.
 
BedellBrave said:
Don't get so wound up gold. If you think the Ds wouldn't be doing the same thing, then you've just become another complete homer.
Click to expand...

I see tonights debate described as " pandemonium" and the Senate Majority leader vowing to stall the Supreme Court like he (they) havethe legislative branch.

It is silly for you of all people to speculate what (D) would do in this situation. If you have shown any tendencies it would be that your understanding of (D) is wanting.

Fed from "the Usual Suspects" I'd guess
 
I have said nothing about that

I have said it would be bull**** if they did

As much as somehow I am viewed a "them" or"you guys"

I would say my support from Ron Paul to Bernie sanders proves I am one of the independent voters here

I also have always been a huge fan of SC and always said if I could choose a job it would be a SC judge. I am from DC and every time we would go back I loved going by the building and loved the few times I was able to go see a case argued.
 
57Brave said:
I see tonights debate described as " pandemonium" and the Senate Majority leader vowing to stall the Supreme Court like he (they) havethe legislative branch.

It is silly for you of all people to speculate what (D) would do in this situation. If you have shown any tendencies it would be that your understanding of (D) is wanting.

Fed from "the Usual Suspects" I'd guess
Click to expand...

^^^ Imagine that - 57, a D homer.
 
The Don said:
So how would a case get there as in, once the court rules on it, it can't be brought up again right? People have continued to sue Obamacare and the mandate was held so I assume since they ruled on the mandate that it can no longer be tried and that they have to try and sue other parts of the law?
Click to expand...

People can sue and if they get a lower court to agree with them, the case moves on if appealed. It can go all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
I'm in agreement, Gold. Just saying I have no confidence in either political party to do the right thing. People couldn't even take the time to recognize a human being died before the circus took off. And I have no confidence these days that a nominee won't be strongly leaning left or right depending on who is in the White House.

I really think the Republicans would be stupid to stall Obama out. I'm not saying they have to just completely go along with whoever he nominates because there is a chance he nominates someone who has no business being on the Court. Or he could nominate someone really good. But it'll only make the Republicans look bad and they've got some key Senate races to hold on to in purple states this year.

If a Republican wins the White House, there will come a time when he gets a chance to flip the court back the other way.
 
This political dance is nothing new or abnormal. That said, a friend put it well:

"It is the prerogative of the duly elected President of the United States, and of him alone, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, to appoint judges of the Supreme Court, whenever such appointments are necessary, and without regard to election cycles. It is the prerogative of the United States Senate to confirm or not affirm said appointment by a simple majority vote. The decision of the President to appoint a particular Supreme Court judge, or the Senate not to confirm such an appointment, can and may be based on merit only, can and may be overtly political, can and may be wise or ill advised, both parties (and both political parties) being subject to the political consequences of their decisions."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top