Elizabeth Warren on Replacing Scalia
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
LOL well I have never heard John Oliver referred to as a socialist and I am relatively confident that he isn't from South Africa, but other than that your post is spot on. Maybe I just watched the wrong video?
I also couldn't find anything incorrect in the video either.
Do you really think the Senate will give consent on any Obama appointment? Liberal judges believe in "living" constitutions, which means NO constitution.
Lmao, I didn't say anything about nationalism, just increasing the minimum wage and the environment, which you failed to respond to. Try again, Sparky.
But John Oliver isn't Australian either. I see the problem here. You ASSUMED the clip was from the "Daily Show" so you skipped watching it at went straight for the clever response. Seems to have backfired a bit.
You somehow take the privilege of insisting Scalia is right on abortion, when obviously he's wrong. The right to abortion, according to the SCOTUS is guaranteed in the 14th amendment. It's like gay marriage - neither are exclusively stated to be illegal anywhere in the constituion - just like background checks for those purchasing guns.
What are you saying. Translation please. [Because a matter it is not forbidden by the constitution is an argument that declaring the matter to be a "right" is a textual interpretation. Holy cow! I hope you aren't arguing that. Gruesome logic.]
What are you saying. Translation please. [Because a matter it is not forbidden by the constitution is an argument that declaring the matter to be a "right" is a textual interpretation. Holy cow! I hope you aren't arguing that. Gruesome logic.]
Republicans believe in a living constitution as well. I can cite as many examples as you. For instance, this court has manufactured a right of free speech for corporations. This court has manufactured an interpretation of gun rights that never existed. This court has applied interstate commerce differently depending on the political subject (marijuana vs. healthcare).
You somehow take the privilege of insisting Scalia is right on abortion, when obviously he's wrong. The right to abortion, according to the SCOTUS is guaranteed in the 14th amendment. It's like gay marriage - neither are exclusively stated to be illegal anywhere in the constituion - just like background checks for those purchasing guns.
http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/abortion-privacy.html[/QUOTE]
You somehow take the privilege of insisting Scalia is right on abortion, when obviously he's wrong. The right to abortion, according to the SCOTUS is guaranteed in the 14th amendment. It's like gay marriage - neither are exclusively stated to be illegal anywhere in the constituion - just like background checks for those purchasing guns.
You somehow take the privilege of insisting Scalia is right on abortion, when obviously he's wrong. The right to abortion, according to the SCOTUS is guaranteed in the 14th amendment. It's like gay marriage - neither are exclusively stated to be illegal anywhere in the constituion - just like background checks for those purchasing guns.
It's perfectly logical since the constitution doesn't exclusively make abortion illegal by specifically mentioning it. Marriage isnt defined in the constitution either and both abortion and gay marriage fall under the 14th amendment.
It would behoove you to include the link I provided above in your reply to me, its clearky stated there. In addition you're arguing that Scalia was right on abortion, which is asinine.
[/QUOTE]
So there is a textual argument that the absence of a prohibition is evidence of a right. I.e., because abortion is not forbidden in the constitution it may be elevated to a right if five judges say so. I'm sure there is a legal theory for this gruesome logic, but it's not textualism.
But back to the point, I cited to an example of E. Warren's disregard for the text of the constitution - as requested.
Republicans shouldn't just come out and say that they won't confirm anyone. What they should do is push the president to put forward a good compromise candidate.
Wait! Bernie and Hillary are talking about nationalizing industry?
When did that happen?
I did not argue Scalia was right or wrong, I cited an example of Warren claiming a constitutional right exists (the right to contraception) which is not in the text of the document.
Why don't you support you argument that Scalia was wrong on abortion in stead of calling it "assinine." That just "generalizing."
If the GOP had the WH and the Dems had Congress, would "NOW" be the time to be an obstructionist?
Please enlighten us. I'm having trouble recalling which Supreme Court Justice the Dems refused to vote on in 2008.
Oh, right. That didn't happen.
It's becoming an accepted part of the Congressional toolbox. The GOP made it so that any future holder of a majority (except them) will be blameless if it obstructs. We can still blame the GOP, because this level of obstructionism is unknown in modern times. But if the Dems win and do the same, they will get a pass. And once the Dems get a pass, the GOPs will, too, when they regain power.
That's how these things generally work. If you don't smack it down when it starts, it becomes legitimized when it gets passed along. We call it "precedent."
I speculated that ~25 of democrats would be in favor of a plan to nationalize industry to further various labor, income equality and environmental goals.
IaHawk44 took the bait and still doesn't even realize it.
110th Congress[edit]
At the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007, President Bush did not renominate Boyle, Myers, Haynes and Wallace in an attempt at reconciliation with the Democrats.[18] However, that did not stop many Bush judicial nominees from being blocked in committee by the new Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy. Among those stalled in committee until their nominations lapsed were appellate nominees Peter Keisler, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthewsand Glen E. Conrad.
Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, and Chairman Leahy cited the previous controversy over President Clinton's court of appeals nominees in justifying why only ten Bush appellate nominees were confirmed during the 110th Congress.[19][20][21] A total of eleven appellate seats with Bush nominees were left open at the end of the 110th Congress. Of those seats, two (i.e. the North Carolina and Maryland seats of the Fourth Circuit) had originally become available to fill during the administration of President Bill Clinton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies
Not SCOTUS, but basically being vindictive when it comes to confirming appointees.
They're both guilty of this horse shit. Which is one of the many reason Washington is broken.
See my post above.. There is precedent. What I posted isn't pertaining to SCOTUS (in that particular case) but it does show this has been going on long before Obama's terms. My link shows it happened Under Bush and Clinton, and I'm sure before that.
That's pretty tasteless.
And wrong. The liberals are more likely to stick together than the Conservatives (although admittedly, not by much).
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?_r=0
Well, that's what Axelrod is saying. Is there documentation that says Scalia requested Kagan?
Has anyone explained WHY Scalia nominated Kagan?
I mean she's clearly a pro corporatism hack, so there's that. But was that the reason?
The Judiciary committee can reject every candidate put forth - there, by the constitution
Maybe he thought she'd bring some great Jewish food to the court's pot luck luncheons?
Suggested, not requested. Though, Kagan and Scalia became hunting buddies after she made it to the court.
Yeah!! I mean besides someone who is willing to take the time to post about his comments on a message board who could possibly care about this bad toothed limey? AMIRITE?!?
So what you 2 are saying is that because Warren and her buddies aren't usually concerned with the actual text of the constitution, you and your side don't have to be either.
I'm good with that, as long as you stop pretending to care about what the constitution says.
I know this will surprise you but there are other judicial nominations. Maybe you could read up on the federal court structure to enlighten yourself.
