ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Scalia

As soon as you link a SCOTUS nomination by a lame duck president that was confirmed by an opposition Senate.
Wasn't Anthony Kennedy nominated by Reagan and confirmed by a Democratic Senate? Kennedy eventually replaced Robert Bork as a nominee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
Pinned Tweet
Ted Cruz ‏@tedcruz 2h2 hours ago
Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.
I wonder if any GOP candidate will buck this trend.

I won't be holding my breath.

Maybe Trump, just to get attention and as a basis for criticizing the others.

Maybe Kasich or Bush or anyone who wants to display a bit of statesmanship to contrast themselves with the partisan hacks.

There's really no cost to taking that position - unless you are in the Senate now and might have to walk the walk once you have talked the talk.
 
Yes he was, I was in his class.

Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Always hilarious when IMCC gets owned like this. I'm sure he'll disappear from this thread now.

And LOL at a prison guard mocking the CV of a Columbia and Harvard educated attorney and professor who became President. Only on this board.
 
Yes he was, I was in his class.

Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

So he was "considered" a lecturer? OK. Whatever. Sounds like a gift title to me.
 
Seriously.....anyone with common sense knows that our Douche Bag POTUS will find the most Lefty wacko possible to nominate. Probably will be a good Lawyer with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Or better yet nominate himself. This is very serious that we get a level headed nominee. But I don't expect that from Obama.

You're a sick puppy, aren't you?
 
It would depend upon who Obama nominates, of course. But even so, I really doubt they will let a lame duck president -- especially one with his record -- change the balance of the SCOTUS.
I disagree. I think the Republicans would expend too much political capital blocking for a full year. It would be near unprecedented.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iarick
"Dumbest Cockwallet on HROT" isn't a gift title. IMCC earned that one with thread performances the likes of which we're seeing tonight.

Again. So much HATE from you when I simply said Obama was a "lecturer" and not a professor. Why so much hate? Does it personally offend you to the bone that someone doesn't like your man as much as you?

I find it fascinating how visceral you become at moments like this.
 
Again. So much HATE from you when I simply said Obama was a "lecturer" and not a professor. Why so much hate? Does it personally offend you to the bone that someone doesn't like your man as much as you?

I find it fascinating how visceral you become at moments like this.

Because you were proven wrong, straight from the employer's mouth and you couldn't acknowledge it.
 
Obama says he will nominate someone in his remarks on Scalia.
 
Again. So much HATE from you when I simply said Obama was a "lecturer" and not a professor. Why so much hate? Does it personally offend you to the bone that someone doesn't like your man as much as you?

I find it fascinating how visceral you become at moments like this.

First off -- keep crying, brah. It's a good look for you. Let your mascara run because someone on the interwebz pointed out how stupid you are. Aren't you like 50-something?

As for your question -- I'm offended and annoyed by high level stupidity, which you routinely exhibit here and should be ridiculed for. Obama has been good in some ways, lousy in others. But the stuff fools like you come up with, like mocking his CV and job titles of all things, as a means to prop up your own hate, is comical.

Anything else? If not, you might want to log off for the night and stop confirming many of the things folks already assume about you with regards to intelligence.
 
So . . . favoring the rich while enjoying their largess would be OK, but criticizing them while taking their gifts wouldn't be?
Did you mean favoring a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Sometimes I forget that Democrats can never be hypocrites because they have no values to begin with. ( I've been told this by one of my left leaning drones for years )
 
I wonder what odds Vegas gives on a new Justice being confirmed before the election this Fall?
I'd think there is almost 0% of this happening. This will play bigger to many than the POTUS election. Come on Obama......appoint a liberal! ;)
 
Seriously.....anyone with common sense knows that our Douche Bag POTUS will find the most Lefty wacko possible to nominate. Probably will be a good Lawyer with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Or better yet nominate himself. This is very serious that we get a level headed nominee. But I don't expect that from Obama.
Imagine what candidate POTUS Sanders can find! THAT would be the ultimate GOP horror story!
 
There is no need to rush into any confirmation if an unqualified candidate is nominated. In fact it is up to the Senate to determine how many SC justices there are. It has varied from 5 to 10 over the years.


The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

This would be a great time to change the number to 8. Gridlock in the SCOTUS could go hand in hand with the rest of the gridlock between Congress and the Executive Branch. The less that gets done by these clowns the better off the American taxpayers are.
 
Did you mean favoring a strict interpretation of the Constitution? Sometimes I forget that Democrats can never be hypocrites because they have no values to begin with. ( I've been told this by one of my left leaning drones for years )

Was Scalia using a strict interpretation in bush v gore? What about when he ruled the 14th Amendment prohibits Michigan from using affirmative action in college admissions, but lets Texas make gay sex a crime. What about when he wrote wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms."
 
I wonder what odds Vegas gives on a new Justice being confirmed before the election this Fall?
I'd think there is almost 0% of this happening. This will play bigger to many than the POTUS election. Come on Obama......appoint a liberal! ;)
GOP won't have a choice. If Obama wants he can at least appoint a temporary justice during a Senste recess. Either way this thing is getting filled.
 
It would depend upon the makeup of he Senate, just like it does now. The president can make this a political football, or he can act responsibly.
No, he cannot act responsibly Lone...unless he allows the GOP leadership to make his nomination for him. The GOP is not going to allow Obama the privilege...They have stone-walled him every step of the way the past 7 years, they ain't giving up now.
 
There is no need to rush into any confirmation if an unqualified candidate is nominated. In fact it is up to the Senate to determine how many SC justices there are. It has varied from 5 to 10 over the years.


The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

This would be a great time to change the number to 8. Gridlock in the SCOTUS could go hand in hand with the rest of the gridlock between Congress and the Executive Branch. The less that gets done by these clowns the better off the American taxpayers are.
"unqualified" is a rather subjective term. The position has become so damned political all candidates are qualified/unqualified.
 
There is no need to rush into any confirmation if an unqualified candidate is nominated. In fact it is up to the Senate to determine how many SC justices there are. It has varied from 5 to 10 over the years.


The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

This would be a great time to change the number to 8. Gridlock in the SCOTUS could go hand in hand with the rest of the gridlock between Congress and the Executive Branch. The less that gets done by these clowns the better off the American taxpayers are.
On the eve of a very close election, I don't see the GOP rolling the dice on such a controversial idea.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT