It was more about hanging Mitch McConnell with his own hypocritical words, but apparently you didn't watch the clip. Not terribly surprised.
Elizabeth Warren on Replacing Scalia
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
It was more about hanging Mitch McConnell with his own hypocritical words, but apparently you didn't watch the clip. Not terribly surprised.
Which Supreme Court Justice did they obstruct in 2007?
Yes, I'm going to keep asking this embarrassing question until you and the other idiots stop lying.
I didn't watch because I cant stand the show btw not terribly surprised you like it.
The things Harry Reid did in the Senate to block for Obama is THE example of partisan obstructionism. The guy was a tyrant - but of course not called out by the media because they supported his terrible behavior. So I have a hard time feeling sorry for any left-winger crying foul now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/
Most people are smart enough to understand what the comment means. So keep asking your dumb question.
She's 82, looks like shit, weighs 48 pounds, and was a chain smoker most of her life.
Close but not cigar. I don't really have a side, but I just adore hearing lectures about the text of the constitution from Ivy League "scholars" that have made a career of ridiculing textualists like Scalia.
Close but not cigar. I don't really have a side, but I just adore hearing lectures about the text of the constitution from Ivy League "scholars" that have made a career of ridiculing textualists like Scalia.
Yes, but we are talking about nominating a Supreme Court Justice.
So when someone makes a supposed statement of fact, it's assumed to be relevant to nominating Supreme Court Justices, unless stated otherwise. And if stated otherwise (which it wasn't) it's also reasonable to expect an argument why facts about a different situation are relevant to the situation under discussion (which also didn't happen).
Please try to pay attention and stay on course.
The first American Indian on the Supreme Court. I like it.
You know you can ridicule Scalia on lots of grounds. Just because you disagree with his bizarre Ouija board understanding of the constitution - where only he and a few mystically-empowered friends have the ability to commune with the dead founders to ascertain what they really meant - that doesn't mean you don't think the written words matter.
Elizabeth Warren has more background than many to point out what the constitution does and doesn't say. But if you don't like her, why not just look at the constitution yourself.
She's a bankruptcy law professor by trade. Not exactly the same sort of stock as Scalia.
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.]
- Supreme Court views abortion as a "privacy right" and a "liberty claim"
- Abortion is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, informed by the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments
We hate to disappoint you, but we won't be talking much here about the right to life or the right to choose. We won't be talking about murdering the unborn or a woman's inviolable rightQUOTontrol her body. As much as this sort of language and these sorts of claims fill the abortion debate, they are not really central to the way the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of abortion. For the Court, abortion is a "privacy right" and a "liberty claim." It is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which is informed, in this case, by the First,Third, Fourth, Fifth and NinthAmendments. You may find this evasive—some have argued that this approach only obscures more fundamental moral or philosophical questions—but this is the way the Court has ruled. If you want to understand the state of abortion law in America, this is the way you have to think.
The Supreme Court established this position in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. But before we can discuss that ruling we need to back up a bit.
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.
No, you copied and pasted an opinion but there was nothing there that proved she disregarded the constitution - because she didn't. If anyone did it was Scalia.
When it comes to civil and human rights the constitution doesn't specify or exempt anyone from the rights granted to our society. Like I stated earlier, it's why gay marriage is legal - it should've been allowed long ago.
You seem to really be struggling with the term "judicial nomination" as I have written since my first post. Why do you think that only refers to the Supreme Court?
Obama only got those 5 million votes from the graveyards across the hood and Chicago! And besides I doubt he could win again. The people are TIRED of this worthless law breaking POS.
Maybe it's time for a amendment to the constitution that states that judges nominated by a president, the senate has 90 days to confirm or disapprove of. If not voted on in 90 days the person is placed on the court. I guess I am tired of the games, do your job that you ran and was elected for, stop playing politics and do your job.
it is their duty to ignore the nomination if the insane dude doing it is an enemy of the state
What I find mind-boggling here is the flat out lies and untruths being told by the GOP leadership. Sen. Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Chrman, says there is an "80 year precedent" when there just isn't. 36 years ago Justice Kennedy was sworn in in a very similar time frame when the Dems had control of the Senate. Grassley's statement is pure ignorance and smacks of politics. McConnell is sayin' the American people should have a voice in the nomination...Well, nominating Justices to the SC is the responsibility of the POTUS...the Senate role is "advise and consent." To tell all the Senate will not even discuss a nominee is pure politics and 100% stupid.
To me, this is just further proof that the GOP is truly the "Party of No." They have obstructed the will of the American peoplke since day one of Obama's presidency. And guys/gals..the beauty of this is that in politics there is pay-back. So when your guy gets in, don't piss and moan to me. All is fair in love, war and politics.
Then, wouldn't it just be God's justice that Bernie gets to nominate two or three Justices once he becomes POTUS.
To me, this is just further proof that the GOP is truly the "Party of No." They have obstructed the will of the American peoplke since day one of Obama's presidency. And guys/gals..the beauty of this is that in politics there is pay-back. So when your guy gets in, don't piss and moan to me. All is fair in love, war and politics.
Then, wouldn't it just be God's justice that Bernie gets to nominate two or three Justices once he becomes POTUS.
Trad...it is PART of the definition of communism. It is not "the" definition of communism. Communism does not allow for the PRIVATE ownership of any property. I have not heard Bernie say he is against private all ownership. Communism is a society where all property and goods are owned in common.
No.
The text of Article II, Section 2 [2] reads as follows:
He(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Senate "shall" provide that consent. The President can nominate and the Senate can confirm, reject or ignore it. They are equal partners in determining who sits on the court.
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices on the Supreme Court with Congress. The first Judicial Act of 1789 established 6 Justices. Later Judicial Acts adjusted the number of justices to as low as 5 and as high as 10. The Judicial Act of 1869 set the number at the current 9 members. It also established that only a quorum of 6 is needed to hear and rule on a case. So the Court could actually lose two additional members and be more than capable legally to conduct business. The suggestion that a replacement must be made within the next 10 months in order for the court to conduct business is 100% false and frankly comical.
Our Current Vice President was at the center of killing the Robert Bork nomination in 1987 and then the Democrats basically ignored the Ginsberg nomination following it. Almost 9 moths later they confirmed Kennedy. The Court operated business as usual during that period.
Charles Schumer in July of 2007 said in a speech that if any openings on the Supreme Court occurred during the remainder of George Bush's term, they would be blocked regardless of qualification and the positions would remain open for the next president to nominate. That was with over 18 months remaining in Bush's term.
So as usual the selective outrage shown by Democrats is just another example of intellectual dishonesty.
And what in GHO's past political life has led you to think they he will do this.
He will nominate a left-wing progressive with a history of legislating from the bench which is his Constitutional right to do and the Republicans will exercise their constitution right to advice and consent by ignoring the nomination.
She has about as much legal acumen in her entire body as Scalia had in one of his pubs.
Background checks aren't specified in the condtitution either, yet the NRA believes it is. They use any suggestion of gun control as an assault on the 2nd amendment when it's not. Does the term 'arms' include hollow point bullets? How about RPG's? Does the 2nd amendment allow a citizen to own an aircraft carrier and fighter jets? I mean if one is supposedly allowed to rise against a tyrannical government you're going to need a few of those.
The 14th amendment proves Scalia was wrong, it's there in black and white - and it's why you neglect to mention it. Since abortion isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution there is no foundation for making it illegal. The only reason anti choice exists is because of religion, and we clearly know we're a secular society.
Human and civil rights aren't limited in any capacity and Scalia believed otherwise.
Huh? I'm not the one who raised 2007 to prove the wingnut point. I'm the one who noted that 2007 does NOT prove the wingnut point.
Just because Schumer didn't have the chance to follow thru on his statement does not make it any less applicable.
I'm no expert on communism, but I'm pretty sure most versions of communism have a fairly reasonable view of personal property. Nobody is coming to get your toothbrush.
The problem arises over differences of opinion about what should count as personal property that belongs to you vs other property that is owned in common by the society. So, for example, when I saw a news clip on some guy who had a million acre ranch, I'm inclined to think that's stretching the idea of personal property to ludicrous extremes.
One perfectly reasonable point of Marxist philosophy is that you own what you create. You own your own labor. So the share of value your labor contributes to the overall value of something, that share belongs to you.
June of 1987 is not the same as FEB of 2016.
The process was started much earlier the democrats stalled it for 8 months.
The Dems only passed him because he was so middle of the road.
The 1960 Democratic Senate Passed a resolution against Election year nominations.
The record for stalling is held by the Democrats of 1969!
The process was started much earlier the democrats stalled it for 8 months.
The Dems only passed him because he was so middle of the road.
The 1960 Democratic Senate Passed a resolution against Election year nominations.
The record for stalling is held by the Democrats of 1969!
Since smoking in an airplane bathroom isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution, there is no foundation for making it illegal.
This is a valid counter to her point about President Obama being re-elected in 2012. In 2014 the American people voted in a Republican Senate, whose approval is mandated by the Constitution. Why does she think that only the 2012 election matters?
The senate still has a duty to at least have a confirmation hearing and then they can vote as they choose. If they vote nay, then so be it; but frankly the GOP senators and candidates are looking like petty children by refusing to do so. And, yes, if the circumstances were reversed I'd say the same thing if the democrats were doing it.
I remember that one. I was thinking, though, what if Obama nominates Ted Cruz? He's exactly the kind of certifiable right wing loon the Republicans crave but everybody in the Senate hates him.
As recently as 2007. Other than the noise its politics Dems are trying to disguise as issues
They were friends. He knew Obama would pick a left leaning nominee and he wanted a smart one.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/
Because ALL the people elected Obama POTUS.......Not so with Senators. The "duty" of the POTUS includes submitting nominations to the Senate for justices of all federal courts. The Senate's duty is to "advise and consent."
Two very different things, dude and if you can't navigate the difference that's a problem you need to address.
