Scalia dead
 

Just saw, 79. Omg

Gonna get real interesting NOW!

Wow......

The right is shivering

Hello Duval Patrick

An intellectual giant, I disagreed with most of his decisions but he was a good man and will be missed. Sadly the robots on both sides will spew their ideological dog crap making his passing into a continuation of the current political circus.

Well spoken and well written. In my opinion an intellectual giant doesnt let his religious beliefs factor into decisions in a country that is supposed to seperate those beliefs from governing the country. Do you think an Intellectual Giant would come to this conclusion?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...iversity-texas

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...iref=obnetwork

An interesting article on scalia.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scali...-v-king-2013-6

This link, to scalias dissent in md vs king. I agreed with him on that case.

Everyone knew he was quite conservative....it is an issue, when the legislative and executive are both controlled by one party. I am glad that the current balance is how it is, as we most likely will get a more middle of the road judge, as they all should be.

Notable cases where Scalia sided with the majority:

Bush v. Gore

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (highlight): "“Well, religious beliefs aren’t reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. You know, it’s God tells you. It’s not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable? He’s supposed to have a full beard.”

And one of his big dissents:

Lawrence v. Texas (highlight): "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home,” he wrote. “They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

And, of course, he didn't consider the execution of an innocent person to be cruel and unusual punishment:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...estion_is.html

:tro: Well said.

Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on Antonin Scalia's Death:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...alia/80375976/

I thought the Notorious RBG's tribute to him was very sweet.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2531910

I'm jus sayin;)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/16...ww.google.com/

The obstreperous republicans at it again. But hey, why let the eighth year be any different than the other seven?

Savage, trump evidently read your link and said why not?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-t...been-murdered/

Oh, what short memories the Democrats have:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/fl...t-nominations/

Obviously what schumer proposed was wrong. I no more agree with his take then than i do mcconnells now.
Also, schumers idea was a hypothetical-what mcconnell is suggesting is REAL. There is NO reason to expect the scotus to be short for a year. The voters did get to choose the president who would make this selection, remember?

On what constitutional basis can there be a delay?

And do note, re schumer...


'A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.'

And mcconnell didnt suggest a thing.

Oh, I agree that the president has every right to nominate a candidate justice, and the Senate has the right to set the hearing date, or not.

Same as if there was a Republican president and a Democrat Senate.

Now it would be best if there was a compromise, but the president said that he most likely would not choose a moderate, so exhortations to give him exactly who he wants will likely fall on deaf ears.

Ideally there is an acceptable candidate for both sides, moderate, who by definition would not be politicized since this is judicial work. It gets this off the to do list and removes it as a constant distraction.

There is a huge misperception out there about the Supreme Court. Most people think that the majority of cases that go to the Supreme Court end up being decided by a bare 5-4 majority along party lines. That is completely false. That rarely happens. Over the past few years, around 70% of the cases were decided by a unanimous vote. It is rare that the vote is 5-4, and when it is, it is rarely on party lines. There were only 4 cases out of the last 72 cases that were decided by a 5-4 vote that went along party lines.

http://wtvr.com/2014/07/01/supreme-c...-this-session/

how does one compromise with a group who says 'we will approve no one'?

Duval is a lock. They won't be able to not approve him

The RINOs have been compromising for 7 years and a month due to the pigment of the moron in chief's skin which is fanned by the media which is predominantly owned by people who hate the working class. Especially the white Christian working class.

There should be zero compromise. The President didn't dress accordingly for his propaganda presser. He gives zero ****s about white America. And of course he'll use a minority nominee to guilt the cuckservatives.

Most of us regular Joes are sick of this horseshit. It's a slow white genocide. Period.

I don't give any f.ucks to say it. They are blatantly starting a race/class war on both sides.

Bernie Sanders had the phony Killer Mike stumping for him this week. Saying "God Damn" on the podium and telling white people to stay out of some process he was ranting about.

Well this type of rhetoric is coming from the white majority and soon. It's already happening in Europe. I'm tired of the elite using dumb minorities as their pawns for war.

Killer Mike is the son of a police officer who raps about bringing down the system. If you believe he's not bought and paid for by the elite then I have a fu.cking bridge to sell you. If anything he was saying was something they weren't having he wouldn't have one album on wax.

Wake up. Stop listening to people who were brought up through the system. A cop's son is an infiltrator. Period.

And this isn't the first time the elite have taken the family of a cop and used them as propagandists for more policing of the police. Which is code for, "We've got some buddies who are highly unproductive. They need government jobs monitoring people who actually do real work."

;)

Everything Free. Except autopsies on SCJ.

It's ok go back to sleep. Feel guilty over sh.it that happened before color tv.

Savage and Trump, two top notch whackos:D
Usta get the Savage radio show, lotsa laughs from that right wing nut:D

The democrats would be doing the exact same thing as the republicans right now if the shoe was on the other foot. People have such short memories.

What did democratic Senator Chuck Schumer say back in 2007? Here was his quote:

“With respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-supreme-court

Umm...what he ACTUALLY said, from the link YOU posted (If you would have been bothered to even read it before simply parroting the headline from yet ANOTHER Anti-Trump MSM hit piece):

>>>"I'm hearing it's a big topic, that's the question. And it's a horrible topic, but they say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow," Trump responded. "I can't give you an answer. You know usually I like to give you answers but I literally just heard it a little while ago."<<<

Doesn't even remotely consider what you have accused him of. But also (and much less alarmingly), doesn't stop the brain-dead troll from agreeing with your lazy regurgitation:

Except isn't not for the same reasons. Schumer was saying that Bush was appointing ideologues, so he was opposed to confirming any Bush nominee because he felt the SC was right-wing enough already.

McConnell, et al, are spinning a song and dance about the Constitution and the will of the voters (which, the voters expressed their will in 2008 and 2012), rather than just being honest and saying they only want a right-winger on the SC.

It's a false comparison. Schumer, at least, was being honest. The GOP is not.

And they're just morons in how they handled this. Here's how they could have done it:
"Absolutely, he should nominate whoever he sees fit. He is the President, after all."
(Then, just vote down any candidate, with whatever reason they come up with. Now, they've already shown their hand and they look obstructionist, as usual)

It's for the same reason. Schumer didn't want another Conservative on the court. The republicans obviously don't want some left-winger replacing Scalia. The republicans have come up with an excuse to oppose any Obama nominee, the excuse being that this is an election year and the next President should appoint the next Justice. They obviously wouldn't be saying that if the current President was a Republican. We all know that. Their reason for opposing is the same reason that Schumer opposed. That's not exactly a secret.

The republican posturing may not necessarily be a bad idea. They may be sending Obama a message that he better nominate a moderate, if he wants any chance to have the nominee approved. I doubt Obama will do this. He's not big on compromise. It may come down to who he thinks the next President will be. If he thinks the next President will be a democrat, then he can play hardball. But if he thinks the next President will be a Republican, then he is better off getting a moderate on the bench right now, rather than having Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or whoever putting a right-winger on the Court.

The GOP has already said they will reject ANY (Let me repeat that) ANY nominee he sends to them. ANY. So they're refusing to do their job (from what I hear about Rubio, that's already par for the course for him, of course).

Seeing as how the GOP idea of "compromise" is "Give us what we want or the economy gets it," I fully support Obama's refusal to "compromise."

He tried to work with them, the first few years. Now, I think he is officially out of f*cks to give.

I myself, would love to see Clinton or Sanders get in and, as their first decision, nominate Obama to the SC. Either one would be fine, although, with Mr., the Court would actually get a moderate. Dunno with the Mrs. The pyrotechnics from the GOP would be worth it. Popcorn futures all around!

Follow up: because I like to google the stuff that gets posted here, I googled the details of Schumer's 2007 speech and, oh, shock of shocks, the site linked to above didn't give the full story:

""We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts of Justice Ginsburg replaced by another Alito. Given the track of this President and the experience of obfuscation at hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court at least, I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not.""

From the article (which includes a link to the actual video):

"What Schumer actually said was that Senate Democrats had been hoodwinked by President Bush's first two Supreme Court picks - Roberts and Alito. They'd accepted assurances that they were mainstream conservative judges who would operate with the precedents and decisions of the Rehnquist Court but hadn't. (Certainly, the experience since 2007 has more than ratified this perception.) Schumer said Democrats should try to block any future Bush nominees unless they could prove that they were 'in the mainstream' and would abide by precedent."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...-actually-said

And I remember all the press about how moderate Roberts was and what total BS that turned out to be. As for Alito- well, I think his decisions probably sound better in the original German.

So yeah. TOTALLY not the same circumstance as what we're seeing today.

the headlines says trump considered the topic. what does consider mean? it means to think about, or discuss, which is what trump did.

you seem overwrought that i posted that. i'm sure you'll live tho

and as i had said before, to joey, a hypothetical situation isn't at all the same as what we have now.
but, i saw that grassley is already walking back his comments. i'd imagine it has something to do with the info coming out that many americans think a justice should be named, and seated.
why shouldn't one be? because of something that schumer said?

i have seen nothing, from anyone, that gives an actual reason why there should be a delay. certainly nothing constitutionally based-and what other basis is there?

the gop has already shut down, or threatened to shut down the federal government several times. their continual threats are ridiculous, and certainly not endearing. that's not how our system is supposed to work.

https://www.barackobama.com/climate-...ndoval-nevada/

Why, it's almost as if the left hand doesn't know what the far left hand is doing!

Not quite sure what you mean.
I would rather a compromise that both far left and far right will complain about. The zealots ahould not be in charge.

Eh, leaks like this are usually deliberate. Strategically, if Obama nominates him and the GOP refuses to hear it, they come out looking like obstructionist a-holes (I mean, he's a Republican, for the love of Pete).

I will be surprised if he's the actual choice. But hey, if he is, he's pro-choice.