Justice Scalia

[Menace Sockeyes]

I don't think that 60% percent of the Democrats care anything about anything. After all they elected Obama twice. They are uninformed and looking for handouts. So the SCOTUS means nothing to them. Stupid people are flooding the nation.

Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah! The only thing being flooded is this message board with your idiocy. You lost. Get over it. Maybe your side should eat humble pie and do some soul searching instead of blaming the American people. Democrats are just smarter at making their case for the Executive Branch and have a better track record. Deal with it! ;-)

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Uh........I guess it depends upon your definition of a lame duck. Kennedy filled a spot that was vacated by the retirement of Lewis Powell in the spring of 1987, more than 18 months before Reagan was to leave office. And the Democrats scuttled the first two people Reagan appointed to replace Powell -- Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsberg.

So would you be cool with it if the Republicans engaged in character assassination to defeat the first two attempts Obama makes to replace Scalia, forcing him to put forward a more moderate nominee? Somehow I doubt it.

Obama will nominate a moderate judge, Congress will block it just because it's Obama's appointment, working against the people. Finally, Americans see this and Clinton beats Trump to nominate Obama to the Supreme Court.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Every minority with at least a high school education is now salivating like a trailer court before a billion dollar lotto drawing.

I love when Conservatives spend all year telling us they aren't racists and then posts like the one above come out at these times.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Alex Jones: 'My Gut Tells Me' Antonin Scalia Was Murdered

Jones: The question is, was Antonin Scalia murdered? And the answer to that is, has the Bill of Rights and Constitution been murdered? Has it been reported that members of the Supreme Court have been blackmailed? Yes it has.

When they kill somebody they say, "it appears to be natural causes, nothing to see."

And I wish it was natural cause, but man, my gut tells me no. And if this is an assassination, this signifies that they are dropping the hammer.

He even brought up a conspiracy about Andrew Breitbart's death.

 

[The Tradition]

This tweet is extremely funny by CNN. Really? He will nominate someone? Thanks CNN!

Yeah, and they needed "sources" to confirm, LOL.

 

[lucas80]

Uh........I guess it depends upon your definition of a lame duck. Kennedy filled a spot that was vacated by the retirement of Lewis Powell in the spring of 1987, more than 18 months before Reagan was to leave office. And the Democrats scuttled the first two people Reagan appointed to replace Powell -- Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsberg.

So would you be cool with it if the Republicans engaged in character assassination to defeat the first two attempts Obama makes to replace Scalia, forcing him to put forward a more moderate nominee? Somehow I doubt it.

Wow. Parsing it today, aren't we. I guess it beats admitting you were wrong about something. God bless your wife, she must have a lifetime of uncomfortable silences with you after you are wrong about something, shuffle around the house for a few days rather than admit you are wrong, then ask politely if she'd like to go out for dinner. Reagan was a lame duck, there isn't any question as to the definition. He was a lame duck and a Democratic Senate approved his third nominee. It is the fault of Reagan that he picked an incredibly divisive nominee in Robert Bork. This is the mistake President Obama shouldn't make. There were a lot of people in the Senate who had Watergate fresh in their minds when Bork came up, and Bork had a lengthy legal history that a lot of Americans found distasteful. Bork did get a vote in front of the Senate, by the way. Something that Republicans today are threatening to deny any Obama nominee. It must be noted there were a handful of Republican members of the Senate who voted against Bork, so it was not a purely partisan affair. Ginsburg withdrew. If he hadn't he'd have been given the courtesy of a vote. Personally even in that day and age I think he should have gone forward and not withdrawn. In some ways he was an unintended casualty in the war on drugs, but he is the one who decided to keep smoking pot as an adult.

 

[The Tradition]

Reagan was a lame duck, there isn't any question as to the definition. He was a lame duck and a Democratic Senate approved his third nominee. It is the fault of Reagan that he picked an incredibly divisive nominee in Robert Bork. This is the mistake President Obama shouldn't make. There were a lot of people in the Senate who had Watergate fresh in their minds when Bork came up, and Bork had a lengthy legal history that a lot of Americans found distasteful. Bork did get a vote in front of the Senate, by the way. Something that Republicans today are threatening to deny any Obama nominee. It must be noted there were a handful of Republican members of the Senate who voted against Bork, so it was not a purely partisan affair. Ginsburg withdrew. If he hadn't he'd have been given the courtesy of a vote. Personally even in that day and age I think he should have gone forward and not withdrawn. In some ways he was an unintended casualty in the war on drugs, but he is the one who decided to keep smoking pot as an adult.

There was no doubt that Reagan would be succeeded by his Vice President, George H.W. Bush, and the same sort of policies and philosophies would continue in the new administration. No regime change was going to occur. Delaying the nomination would have been pointless.

That said, Reagan had a helluva time getting someone confirmed. Should Obama's nominee, whoever that may be, not meet the same level of scrutiny?

 

[mstp1992]

I don't think that 60% percent of the Democrats care anything about anything. After all they elected Obama twice. They are uninformed and looking for handouts. So the SCOTUS means nothing to them. Stupid people are flooding the nation.

You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

 

[dgordo]

 

[PCBHAWK]

So, so angry. I feel sorry for you.

The truth hurts!

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

There was no doubt that Reagan would be succeeded by his Vice President, George H.W. Bush, and the same sort of policies and philosophies would continue in the new administration.

No doubt? The 1988 Democratic National Convention ended on July 21st. A Gallup Poll showed that Dukakis led Bush by 17 points; 54 to 37 percent.

 

[pablow]

Sounds promising. It would be nice to know more.

I know her [Jane Kelly]. I also took part in the vetting process when she was nominated to the 8th Circuit - the ABA asked me give my opinoin and requested I interview her colleagues and friends.

She's left leaning, of course, but she's nobody's toady. She was number 1 in her undergraduate class at Duke and in the top ten of her Harvard Law School class (not 10%, top ten out of 700 students). She's from Indiana and both her parents are college professors. Her significant other (a man) is a Iowa Hawkeye to the bone. Jane might be too - I forgot to ask..

As a conservative and Scalia fan, I could go with Jane Kelly because she's a good person, she's not an idealogue, and she's well qualified to be on the Court. I can't under any circumstances see her lock-stepping with the Court's left wing cartel. She be a case-by-case kind of judge - but, again, she is left leaning.

Personal wise, she is modest, quite, funny, and likes to cook. Her color pick is green, she likes rescue dogs, and her favorite Beatle was George.

 

[The Tradition]

No doubt? The 1988 Democratic National Convention ended on July 21st. A Gallup Poll showed that Dukakis led Bush by 17 points; 54 to 37 percent.

LOL, Dukakis got his clock cleaned. It wasn't even close. A "post-convention bump" isn't proof of anything.

 

[dgordo]

LOL, Dukakis got his clock cleaned. It wasn't even close. A "post-convention bump" isn't proof of anything.

It wasn't a post convention bump. Dukakis was leading in the polls from the end of April through the beginning of September.

 

[The Tradition]

It wasn't a post convention bump. Dukakis was leading in the polls from the end of April through the beginning of September.

Sorry, I was there. I lived it. Dukakis never had a chance.

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

A "post-convention bump" isn't proof of anything.

On Memorial Day Dukakis led 53 to 40. Until the public got to know who Dukakis really was there was plenty of doubt. Sorry, I lived it too. You're wrong.

 

[hawkssox1]

$5 says somehow the Senate (Chuck Grassley), blocks Obama from getting a replacement on the Supreme Court on in the next 9 months.

Sure hope so.I will give him $10.

 

[dgordo]

On Memorial Day Dukakis led 53 to 40. Until the public got to know who Dukakis really was there was plenty of doubt. Sorry, I lived it too. You're wrong.

Until Willie Horton Dukakis was winning.

 

[The Tradition]

On Memorial Day Dukakis led 53 to 40. Until the public got to know who Dukakis really was there was plenty of doubt. Sorry, I lived it too. You're wrong.

LOL, that's like touting polls showing Bernie beating all the Republicans. No one actually believes that'll happen.

 

[hawkssox1]

Obama undoubtedly has a list of candidates already. I assume all presidents have a list. Obama will knock off the far left candidates and go middle of the road. I think he will go for someone who has already been approved by the Senate. Very hard for the Senate to vote against someone who has been approved of during the last few years.
The political angle will be intense. The Senate could flip to the Democrats, and this is now a huge issue to voters in November. Who do you want picking justices?

There will be no vote while Obama is in office count on it.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Until Willie Horton Dukakis was winning.

I've met Willie, nice guy couldn't be more awesome.

Oh you're talking about the rape murder guy, not the Detroit Tigers legend. Nevermind then

 

[YellowSnow51]

It would be fascinating to see the tortured explanations and ideological gymnastics by Republicans to explain voting no.

Well, use the defense that Democrats give for why it's OK that Obama suddenly thinks raising the debt ceiling is a good thing after saying "Raising the debt ceiling is bad for the country and is a sign of poor presidential leadership" and you'll have your answer...whatever that is.

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

LOL, that's like touting polls showing Bernie beating all the Republicans. No one actually believes that'll happen.

Tell you what. Read Chapter 29 of Destiny and Power and then get back to me.

 

[Chewback]

Kennedy was nominated in 1986 after the hatchet job done by Ted Kennedy and others on Reagan's first choice, Robert Bork. By your standards, you forgot about the actual facts of the matter on which you commented.

By any standards, Kennedy is not so much a liberal as he is a weather vane, his opinions driven by popular commentary at the time of said decision.

It's you who is having trouble with actual facts. Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan on November 30, 1987 and unanimously confirmed by the Democrat controlled Senate on February 3, 1988 during Reagan's last year in office. Both Mitch McConnell and Uncle Chuckle Grassley happily joined the rest of the Senate Republicans in approving the lame duck President's nominee.

 

[The Tradition]

Tell you what. Read Chapter 29 of Destiny and Power and then get back to me.

No need. Every election cycle has ups and down, but Dukakis was far left while Bush was seen as center-right. Dukakis was doomed from the get-go.

 

[Chewback]

Uh........I guess it depends upon your definition of a lame duck. Kennedy filled a spot that was vacated by the retirement of Lewis Powell in the spring of 1987, more than 18 months before Reagan was to leave office. And the Democrats scuttled the first two people Reagan appointed to replace Powell -- Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsberg.

So would you be cool with it if the Republicans engaged in character assassination to defeat the first two attempts Obama makes to replace Scalia, forcing him to put forward a more moderate nominee? Somehow I doubt it.

As soon as a president starts his second term he is a lame duck. Certainly can't run again. And Kennedy was confirmed less than 12 months before Reagan left office.

 

[The Tradition]

As soon as a president starts his second term he is a lame duck. Certainly can't run again. And Kennedy was confirmed less than 12 months before Reagan left office.

Technically, a president isn't a lame duck until his successor has been elected, but not yet sworn in.

 

[Chewback]

According to this link, that was 1988. Who am I to argue?

Take it up with Bloomberg if you disagree.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ntial-debate-starts-in-shadow-of-scalia-death

I know, I gave minimal information. I thought I'd give LC a chance to overcome his fear of Google and find some stuff on his own.

 

[SoMplsHawkI]

No need. There was no doubt because I said so not what actually happened.

FIFY.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Chewback]

Technically, a president isn't a lame duck until his successor has been elected, but not yet sworn in.

OK fine. So Obama is NOT a lame duck.

 

[The Tradition]

Until Willie Horton Dukakis was winning.

Willie Horton hurt, but what really sunk Dukakis was this:

 

[ottumwan in tx]

No doubt? The 1988 Democratic National Convention ended on July 21st. A Gallup Poll showed that Dukakis led Bush by 17 points; 54 to 37 percent.

but votes don't matter

 

[BioHawk]

LOL, that's like touting polls showing Bernie beating all the Republicans. No one actually believes that'll happen.

Yet people actually do believe that Trump will win. Those same people also believed that Romney would win in a landslide. I wouldn't put a whole lot of credibility into the people you are getting your information from. They don't have a very good track record.

 

[The Tradition]

Yet people actually do believe that Trump will win. Those same people also believed that Romney would win in a landslide. I wouldn't put a whole lot of credibility into the people you are getting your information from. They don't have a very good track record.

Do you believe Trump will win it all?

Bernie?

I bet a poll asking who you think will win it (rather than who you're for) would yield Hillary in a landslide.

 

[BioHawk]

Do you believe Trump will win it all?

Bernie?

I bet a poll asking who you think will win it (rather than who you're for) would yield Hillary in a landslide.

I'm about 90% sure the Democratic candidate will win. At this point, the GOP has pretty much handed the election to the Democrats (for President, Congress is a different story). It's still possible for the Democrats to screw it up though. I can't tell you who will win the Democratic primaries. In 2008 I was positive Obama would be the next President by this time. I am not so sure now, the primary is much closer in my opinion.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I'm about 90% sure the Democratic candidate will win. At this point, the GOP has pretty much handed the election to the Democrats (for President, Congress is a different story). It's still possible for the Democrats to screw it up though. I can't tell you who will win the Democratic primaries. In 2008 I was positive Obama would be the next President by this time. I am not so sure now, the primary is much closer in my opinion.

well, since they are appointed and installed and nobody wins anything, maybe you better attend the upcoming Bilderberg meeting, see who they are going to install

they installed Obama in 2008 in virginia

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This tweet is extremely funny by CNN. Really? He will nominate someone? Thanks CNN!

Well, he's a Dem, so that probably rules out the first fetus or computer being nominated to the Court.

 

[timinatoria]

I'm about 90% sure the Democratic candidate will win. At this point, the GOP has pretty much handed the election to the Democrats (for President, Congress is a different story). It's still possible for the Democrats to screw it up though. I can't tell you who will win the Democratic primaries. In 2008 I was positive Obama would be the next President by this time. I am not so sure now, the primary is much closer in my opinion.

Well if you say so. I guess it's settled then. You said 90% certain and everything.

 

[Raglefant]

well, since they are appointed and installed and nobody wins anything, maybe you better attend the upcoming Bilderberg meeting, see who they are going to install

they installed Obama in 2008 in virginia

Tell me more! How do they do it? Media manipulation to get the desired result? Controlling voter machines to manipulate the actual vote? Invisible gases to control minds that they activate when needed?