Justice Scalia found dead.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Sedatedfork said:
That Scalia sure had a way with words

Link
Click to expand...

He was an asshole. Other Supreme court justices stayed private and dignified. He traveled around, making big money from right-wing speeches.

It reminds me of Joan Rivers. When she died, articles pretended she wasn't widely-hated. When a liberal dies, all the articles use words like "controversial" with quotes from opponents.
 
The republicans better bite the bullet and confirm a moderate, because those clowns are gonna end up with Justice Elizabeth Warren if the dems win.

An interesting candidate would be Larry Lessig, he clerked for Scalia, and would provide the dems with plenty of ammo were he to be blocked.
 
Sly Poker Dog for scotus? He could modify all the briefs and change the parties names to Slypokerdog. Then he could try to ban all the lawyers. That first obscenity case involving the Timbertrolls could be fun.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
The republicans better bite the bullet and confirm a moderate, because those clowns are gonna end up with Justice Elizabeth Warren if the dems win.
Click to expand...

The only Obama nominee I would consent to is Orren Hatch. Obama could add that appointee to his legacy.
 
Sedatedfork said:
Sly Poker Dog for scotus? He could modify all the briefs and change the parties names to Slypokerdog. Then he could try to ban all the lawyers. That first obscenity case involving the Timbertrolls could be fun.
Click to expand...

Would I have access to the nuke button?
 
Guess he was found with a pillow over his head and the right wing rags are running with "was he murdered?!?"

I think it's more likely a homosexual prostitute was suffocating him to enhance his boner.
 
MarAzul said:
The only Obama nominee I would consent to is Orren Hatch. Obama could add that appointee to his legacy.
Click to expand...

Out of a country of 350M people, only one meets your standards?

barfo
 


If they could only find a handicapped transgender asian judge it'd balance out the supreme court nicely.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:


If they could only find a handicapped transgender asian judge it'd balance out the supreme court nicely.
Click to expand...

Tiger Woods is sort of Asian. He might be looking for work. He has a pretty good handicap too. Not sure on the trans thing though. Maybe he would be willing to transition to Tigress Woods?
 
they should come up with Obama's perfect candidate. I mean he already put a lesbian and a mexican lady in there. :MARIS61:
 
There has been buzz about the attorney general of CA Kamala Harris.

1.jpg
 
I haven't read this thread. But I just wanted to say: as an NRA Member and gun owner, this does not bode well, and this was THE LAST person I wanted to die. Scalia could not have picked a worse time to croak.

Every. Single. Gun Rights issue in this country the past 7 years, which has made it to the SC, has passed on a 5-4 vote. And I'm not talking lead in bullets or something. Basic Civil Rights, like Concealed Carry and so called "Assault Weapons Bans" and the Constitutionality of such issues has all passed by a 5-4 vote. Every single one.

Obama puts a liberal on that bench, and we can kiss that Civil Right goodbye.

But I don't envy the Republicans right now. Stall the President (alienate the voting public) and risk Hillary or Commie Sanders getting elected, then they're REALLY screwed. Stall the President, and they risk losing the House or Senate when the voting public gets tired of their shit.

Ride it out and hope for the best? Or offer up a Moderate to appease King Hussein?

Decisions, decisions. I don't envy them in the least; that shit has got to be keeping Mitch awake at night.
 
Jade Falcon said:
I haven't read this thread. But I just wanted to say: as an NRA Member and gun owner, this does not bode well, and this was THE LAST person I wanted to die. Scalia could not have picked a worse time to croak.

Every. Single. Gun Rights issue in this country the past 7 years, which has made it to the SC, has passed on a 5-4 vote. And I'm not talking lead in bullets or something. Basic Civil Rights, like Concealed Carry and so called "Assault Weapons Bans" and the Constitutionality of such issues has all passed by a 5-4 vote. Every single one.

Obama puts a liberal on that bench, and we can kiss that Civil Right goodbye.

But I don't envy the Republicans right now. Stall the President (alienate the voting public) and risk Hillary or Commie Sanders getting elected, then they're REALLY screwed. Stall the President, and they risk losing the House or Senate when the voting public gets tired of their shit.

Ride it out and hope for the best? Or offer up a Moderate to appease King Hussein?

Decisions, decisions. I don't envy them in the least; that shit has got to be keeping Mitch awake at night.
Click to expand...

The court has also ruled 5-4 for abortion rights and ObamaCare. Both sides' oxen have been gored, which seems to be fair to me.

Here's something to consider. If Obama nominates a moderate, it moves the court to the left (anyone left of Scalia does that). If a republican wins the presidential election, he may well have a chance to appoint Ginsburg's successor. She turns 83 in March and would be in her 90s before two 4 year terms are up. If a conservative is appointed to replace her, the court ends up further to the right than it was with Scalia. Effectively Scalia replaced by this conservative, Ginsberg replaced by the less left/moderate Obama appointee.

If Obama appoints a hard left liberal, republicans have cover. They told everyone they'd not pass any Obama appointee before seeing the race, creed, color, sex, etc., of the appointee. The race card won't work. If I were a republican in the senate, I would simply say, "we warned you, sorry, but we're not going to pass anyone, period." And that is that.
 
Denny Crane said:
anyone left of Scalia
Click to expand...

Study history as I may, I can not figure out how we arrive at this point, where perhaps the only Justice to actually uphold his oath of office and attempt to judge as the original intent of the creators of the Constitution saw the job, became the far Right symbol. It seems to me that the center should be that all justices would attempt to use the Constitution as the code. This then would anchor, the actions of the both the left and the right around a common reference. The value of the amendment process would then become apparent to everyone as the valid process to move the anchor when necessary, rather than turning our entire system into a mockery.

We now have a process where the Constitution is basically ignored while we use a Presidential election to allow one man to stack the court to influence the next 30 years with no process to correct an error. Nobody wins in such chaos.
 
MarAzul said:
Study history as I may, I can not figure out how we arrive at this point, where perhaps the only Justice to actually uphold his oath of office and attempt to judge as the original intent of the creators of the Constitution saw the job, became the far Right symbol. It seems to me that the center should be that all justices would attempt to use the Constitution as the code. This then would anchor, the actions of the both the left and the right around a common reference. The value of the amendment process would then become apparent to everyone as the valid process to move the anchor when necessary, rather than turning our entire system into a mockery.
Click to expand...

If a minority think that nothing in the country should ever change, should they always get their way? That's basically what you are arguing for.

It's a good system if it is not abused, prevents tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately it has been badly abused.

It's hard to imagine any amendment being approved at this point. Even a 'puppies and kittens are cute' amendment would fail.

Change is going to happen whether conservatives like it or not. By opposing EVERY change, by acting as if every change, no matter how incremental, is going to destroy the country, you've caused the very problem you are complaining about. The amendment process can't work because there are enough of you who think that any change is a bad change that no amendment will ever pass. Therefore change seeks alternative processes.

That's what you get for being unreasonable.

barfo
 
^^^ plain silly.

His argument is that the justices should abide by the constitution as amended. Only you think it can't be amended.

Your alternative is to scrap the Bill of Rights.

I think that would be the end of this country as we know it. Already have the NSA spying on everyone.
 
Denny Crane said:
His argument is that the justices should abide by the constitution as amended. Only you think it can't be amended.
Click to expand...

No, actually I'm not the only one.

Describe an amendment that you think would get the necessary 2/3rds vote in both houses, plus 3/4ths of the states.

I don't think you'll be able to come up with anything that isn't utterly trivial.

barfo
 
barfo said:
No, actually I'm not the only one.

Describe an amendment that you think would get the necessary 2/3rds vote in both houses, plus 3/4ths of the states.

I don't think you'll be able to come up with anything that isn't utterly trivial.

barfo
Click to expand...

I don't know what amendments we really need. It seems your kind can't convince people we need to do things your way so you find ways to shove them down our throats, disregarding the constitution.

My advice is to make a compelling case for the amendments you want. If you can't convince people, you don't get your way. That's what you get for being unreasonable.
 
The latest amendment to the constitution was ratified 20 years ago? My how things change in 20 years.
 
Denny Crane said:
The latest amendment to the constitution was ratified 20 years ago? My how things change in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that it took 202 years for it to be ratified.

And yes, things do change in 20 years.

barfo
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't know what amendments we really need.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you what amendments you think we need. I know you think the Constitution is the word of god and the founders had perfect foresight in every way.

The question was whether you could imagine an amendment that would pass.

But, you've already proven my point. There is a sizable minority in this country (but still, a minority) that wants to block absolutely everything.

My other point is that nobody needs to convince you in order to arrange changes. Conservatives had that power, but overplayed their hand, and now you don't have it anymore. It doesn't require a constitutional amendment, that's no longer how the game is played. You and MarAzul can bitch about that if you want, but you probably aren't going to get that genie back into the bottle now that you've let it out.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top