Justice Scalia dead

weso1 said:
I think Bedell makes a good point. I think it's fine if Obama doesn't attend if he has a legit reason, but he hasn't really come up with a good excuse. Right now it just seems like he doesn't want to show up for political or petty reasons. The liberals on this board are fine with that, but they're pretty much fine with everything Obama does I've noticed. I'm not sure I really buy the idea that the family doesn't want him there.

Some of you are acting like it's not a big deal, but I think any little thing can play a major role here in this SCOTUS nomination fight.
Click to expand...

"Historically, Presidents Have Not Always Attended Funerals Of Supreme Court Justices, Regardless Of Whether The Death Occurred While Serving. According to a Media Matters analysis, sitting presidents attended four of the funerals of 10 Supreme Court justices who have died since June 1, 1980 -- including justices who died while serving and those who died after serving on the bench."

In spite of the criticism, people close to the Scalia family said Obama was making the right choice. "I wouldn't have expected President Obama to attend the funeral Mass, and I see no reason to fault him for not attending," said Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk who now heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "The ceremony at the Supreme Court seems the most apt opportunity for the president to pay his respects, but he obviously might have severe competing demands on his time."

This is a massive non-issue. Bush didn't go to Byron White's funeral. It's silly to think this is an issue.
 
goldfly said:
who is the left you speak of?

but let's not play games, what old quote do you want to use or quote to show "hypocrisy" to justify these actions?
Click to expand...

hmm... i posted one about Obama and executive orders, and y'all brushed it aside... Here's another fun one:

"If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor"
 
sturg33 said:
hmm... i posted one about Obama and executive orders, and y'all brushed it aside... Here's another fun one:

"If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor"
Click to expand...

why do you speak in "yall" when speaking to me?

i brushed what aside?

most did get to keep their doctor it seems. sucks that we went with a ****ty old republican idea cause the president tried to reach across the aisle and went with their plan instead of just universal healthcare and we left insurance/big business in charge and they decided otherwise. i agree with you there sturg :cheers
 
We are gathered here because of one man. A man known personally to many of us, known only by reputation to even more. A man loved by many, scorned by others. A man known for great controversy, and for great compassion. That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.

It is He whom we proclaim. Jesus Christ, son of the father, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, buried, risen, seated at the right hand of the Father. It is because of him. because of his life, death and resurrection that we do not mourn as those who have no hope, but in confidence we commend Antonin Scalia to the mercy of God.
 
zitothebrave said:
"Historically, Presidents Have Not Always Attended Funerals Of Supreme Court Justices, Regardless Of Whether The Death Occurred While Serving. According to a Media Matters analysis, sitting presidents attended four of the funerals of 10 Supreme Court justices who have died since June 1, 1980 -- including justices who died while serving and those who died after serving on the bench."

In spite of the criticism, people close to the Scalia family said Obama was making the right choice. "I wouldn't have expected President Obama to attend the funeral Mass, and I see no reason to fault him for not attending," said Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk who now heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "The ceremony at the Supreme Court seems the most apt opportunity for the president to pay his respects, but he obviously might have severe competing demands on his time."

This is a massive non-issue. Bush didn't go to Byron White's funeral. It's silly to think this is an issue.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's a bad look for Obama. I think he made a bad political call here.
 
goldfly said:
6C29D093-2CC1-4465-9465-A54C992811B7_zpsinyuof7d.jpg
Click to expand...

But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
 
Biden then is just as dumb as Mitch now

i have said the whole time a judge should be put on the bench and it shouldn't wait etc and said it is bull**** from either party to say otherwise

not sure what you are missing
 
sturg33 said:
But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.

“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
Click to expand...

Perhaps you read or listen to the whole statement and understand the hypothetical context

“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...preme-court-nominees-during-an-election-year/
 
My two cents is that the whole thing is now in the political discussion and should be taken with a grain of salt. I think Obama has it right when he says "It's my constitutional duty to appoint." I wish instead of politicizing the process, McConnell would have said "The President can, and should, appoint, and the Senate, in its constitutional duty, should consider and then accept or reject the nominee." Biden was wrong then and McConnell is wrong now.

That said, both sides will look for every edge, so people shouldn't get all that indignant over McConnell's statement. My guess is they will suffer at the polls if they don't handle this right.
 
50PoundHead said:
My two cents is that the whole thing is now in the political discussion and should be taken with a grain of salt. I think Obama has it right when he says "It's my constitutional duty to appoint." I wish instead of politicizing the process, McConnell would have said "The President can, and should, appoint, and the Senate, in its constitutional duty, should consider and then accept or reject the nominee." Biden was wrong then and McConnell is wrong now.

That said, both sides will look for every edge, so people shouldn't get all that indignant over McConnell's statement. My guess is they will suffer at the polls if they don't handle this right.
Click to expand...

And I think POTUS did even better when he added that "he will in due time." That was a wise way of saying it. And yes, that would have been the wiser thing for McConnell to have said, and of course he could have emphasized "accept or reject."
 
Joe Biden

“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

Exact same thing the republicans are doing right now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top