Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

SCOTUS Watch

Scalia SCOTUS 2016 Obama

  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#21 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 05:17 PM

Oh, right.  Thomas is an originalist.  I didn't think of him because he really spoke through Scalia.  I don't mean that as a jab btw.  He is a quiet Justice and always agreed with Scalia, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have his own opinions.  Thanks Scott for reminding me of Thomas.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#22 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 06:22 PM

Interesting opinion piece on the matter...

http://www.vox.com/2...e-supreme-court

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#23 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 16 February 2016 - 11:34 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 16 February 2016 - 02:11 PM, said:

Second: LotS - that bit of yours I quoted, follows that bit of Cait's I quoted.  The evidence suggests that neither political party acts this way ever.  This is unique to this particular congress as relates to this particular president.  When the show was on the other foot, democrats did not behave this way.


I stand corrected. Last time a vacancy happened during an election year was 1987, and the nomination was confirmed. http://www.scotusblo...election-years/

Quote

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Louis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#24 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 17 February 2016 - 09:09 AM

^Amazing how often we get lied to, isn't it LotS?

#25 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 17 February 2016 - 07:34 PM

View PostOmega, on 17 February 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

^Amazing how often we get lied to, isn't it LotS?

Just because the democrats didn't do it back then, doesn't mean they wouldn't be doing what the GOP is doing today. Today's politics are very different from politics from the 80's. Hell, I doubt very much if Reagan would've gotten the nomination in today's GOP. And yes, the same difference is also on the other side of the isle.

However, since having the roles reversed isn't possible, to prove or disprove my theory, there really is no way to know for sure. Unless, of course, you want to literally throw Obama out, put a lame duck republican in, and do the same for the Senate????
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#26 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 17 February 2016 - 08:36 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 17 February 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:



Just because the democrats didn't do it back then, doesn't mean they wouldn't be doing what the GOP is doing today. Today's politics are very different from politics from the 80's. Hell, I doubt very much if Reagan would've gotten the nomination in today's GOP. And yes, the same difference is also on the other side of the isle.

However, since having the roles reversed isn't possible, to prove or disprove my theory, there really is no way to know for sure. Unless, of course, you want to literally throw Obama out, put a lame duck republican in, and do the same for the Senate????

All of that is just a guess.  You are guessing that Democrats would do exactly the same thing in today's climate.  It's a guess.  The only other time the circumstances were similar, they didn't do it.  That's the evidence we have.  That's an historical fact.  

Do political parties maneuver to get as much as they can WHILE doing their jobs.  You bet.  We all hate that too, but at least they do it while doing their damn jobs.  You know the oath they all take when they are sworn in, you know, uphold the Constitution. Maneuvering, cajoling, threatening, making deals quid pro quo, all of it is politics.  That is D.C. every single day, but refusing to do your job is beyond politics.  It's contrary to the Constitution.  

You can hate Democrats all you want.  Lots of people do.  But don't assuage your guilt by blithely saying "Democrats would do it too", because that is just the pablum the masses on the right feed themselves in order to make breaking the law palatable.

And the truth is, it doesn't matter who would have done it, who is doing it now, or who will try to do it in the future.  It's tantamount to sedition to have Senators refuse to do their Constitutional duty.  Get that?  Treasonous.  Claiming that "they would do it too", doesn't make a wrong a right.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#27 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 12:12 AM

View PostCait, on 17 February 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:


All of that is just a guess.  You are guessing that Democrats would do exactly the same thing in today's climate.  It's a guess.  The only other time the circumstances were similar, they didn't do it.  That's the evidence we have.  That's an historical fact.  

You're correct, it is a guess. But are you telling me you think BOTH parties are the exactly the same as they were back in the 80's? Are you telling me that you don't think BOTH sides haven't become more Ideological?

Quote

You can hate Democrats all you want.  Lots of people do.  But don't assuage your guilt by blithely saying "Democrats would do it too", because that is just the pablum the masses on the right feed themselves in order to make breaking the law palatable.

I don't hate "Democrats". I DO hate Obama, and think he is lower then whale s**t. I DO think the democrats are wrong on a lot of issue, but I don't hate them. In fact, about the only time I really have a problem with Democrats is when they want to reach into MY pocket take MY money and give it to someone else, who didn't earn MY money.


Quote

And the truth is, it doesn't matter who would have done it, who is doing it now, or who will try to do it in the future.  It's tantamount to sedition to have Senators refuse to do their Constitutional duty.  Get that?  Treasonous.  Claiming that "they would do it too", doesn't make a wrong a right.

Sedition? Oh, you mean like Obama filibustering Alito's nomination to the bench? Obama wanting to refuse Alito a up or down vote? That kind of sedition? And speaking of that lower then whale sh*t Obama...now he is refusing to attend the funeral of Scalia???? How disrespectful can you get? He plans on "paying his respects" at the court, or some such excuse as that. How fitting would it be if the other Justices told him to shove his respect and not even show up? If Obama's going to be THAT disrespectful, the court should return the favor in spades.

Also, Obama's disrespect in not attending the funeral has just reignited my hatred for him, as you can probably tell. So now, while I was trying to be not so partisan...Now I don't give a crap. The Senate should make sure he doesn't get another appointee to the bench. Screw him.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#28 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 01:09 AM

Quote


Sedition?

Yes.  Sedition="the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government."

McConnell announced that Republicans would not vote on a nominee.  That's their duty and obligation under the Constitution.  

If they were doing their job, they take a nominee to committee, get the committee recommendation, vote on it.  That's how it works.  Doesn't anyone get this?  I know this is an election year, and everyone is posturing for their constituents, but for crying out loud, we don't need it now.  We need our elected officials to do their jobs.  There are plenty of ways to stall a nomination within the system.

Quote

Oh, you mean like Obama filibustering Alito's nomination to the bench? Obama wanting to refuse Alito a up or down vote? That kind of sedition? And speaking of that lower then whale sh*t Obama...now he is refusing to attend the funeral of Scalia???? How disrespectful can you get? He plans on "paying his respects" at the court, or some such excuse as that. How fitting would it be if the other Justices told him to shove his respect and not even show up? If Obama's going to be THAT disrespectful, the court should return the favor in spades.

Do you know the difference between a specific Constitutional duty and Senate and/or House rules?  That the Constitution allows both houses to make their own rules [something very few realize, and to be clear, I don't agree with much of the nightmare rules Congress has, trust me.]?  

That the filibuster is part of Parliamentary procedure and has been for hundreds of years and not just in the US btw?  Now, I probably don't like it any better than you do, but Obama didn't invent it, and he was certainly exercising well within Senate rules.  He wasn't telling his co-Senators to not accept any nominee.  And, to filibuster you have to get a nomination out of committee.  Someone said, sorry I can't remember who at the moment, that no nominee would make it out of committee.  They aren't even going to let it get to the floor for a filibuster and a vote.

Now lots of things get stalled in committee, so I'm guessing that is a common practice for a lot of things, EXCEPT that the Constitution directly instructs the Senate to Advise and Consent on nominees.  That's not some bill that the majority wants to bury in committee.  This is an actually specified duty to perform.  You have no idea how different that is from what you are comparing this to.  Just no idea.

The filibuster has been part of Senate rules since 1804.  Obama didn't come up with it.  You referenced Alito?  Well, he sits on the court doesn't he.  So, regardless of Democratic hyperbole at the time, they did their jobs and voted on Alito.  Something Republicans are refusing to do.

Quote

Also, Obama's disrespect in not attending the funeral has just reignited my hatred for him, as you can probably tell. So now, while I was trying to be not so partisan...Now I don't give a crap. The Senate should make sure he doesn't get another appointee to the bench. Screw him.

I think it is bad form not to attend the funeral as well, but that alone isn't good enough reason to condone the Senate refusing to do their job.  Don't you get that?  You can hate Obama all you want.  Hate the do nothing Congress.  Be as upset as you want about it all.  I understand.  I was around when Bush 43 invaded Iraq.  Still not over that one.  

But don't think that hating the policies of a politician gives you the right to condon Congress refusing to do their duty and obligation.  People like you also agree, which means millions of people think it is fine and dandy to follow the constitution when it suits you.  To disobey it when it doesn't.  That's criminal and close to anarchy.

And I don't care who does it.  Republican.  Democrat.  Independent.  Wog.  Whig.  I don't care.  Nothing about what you have said makes it OK to hold the Constitution in such contempt.  Nothing.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#29 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 10:33 AM

View PostCait, on 18 February 2016 - 01:09 AM, said:


But don't think that hating the policies of a politician gives you the right to condon Congress refusing to do their duty and obligation.  People like you also agree, which means millions of people think it is fine and dandy to follow the constitution when it suits you.  To disobey it when it doesn't.  That's criminal and close to anarchy.


This is where I get confused. The Majority leader of the Senate has the power (I used power instead of "right") to decide what gets voted on, or makes it to the floor. Are we agreed upon that, at least? So, if he has the power to decide what makes it to the floor for debate or a up or down vote, then what is unconstitutional about him using that power? Granted, a Supreme Court nomination is vastly different then everyday bills and what not, but it still is within the Majority leader's power to decide what makes it to the floor.

As for following the Constitution only when it suits you, or me, and trusting in the constitution....I do trust the Constitution. I just don't trust the politicians, on both sides, who are interpreting it and implementing it.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#30 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 11:22 AM

And if the Senate majority leader just refuses to ever fill any vacancies for the rest of time. Are they doing their job then?

#31 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 12:22 PM

View PostOmega, on 18 February 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

And if the Senate majority leader just refuses to ever fill any vacancies for the rest of time. Are they doing their job then?

The answer to that would be: "No". But, show me where in the Constitution it gives the time line for the Majority leader to do anything? And that's not even taking into account if the Majority of the senate just kept voting down a nomination. Show me where in the constitution it says that majority have to approve a nomination?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#32 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 01:08 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 17 February 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

Just because the democrats didn't do it back then, doesn't mean they wouldn't be doing what the GOP is doing today. Today's politics are very different from politics from the 80's.

How so?

Quote

Hell, I doubt very much if Reagan would've gotten the nomination in today's GOP.

Yes he would have - not because the GOP hasn't moved far, far right since Reagan - a process HE initiated - but because Reagan himself would have moved right too. He was every bit the demagogue Trump and especially Cruz are. He went to Bob Jones University to assure racists in the south they had a friend in him, for goodness' sake. (And they DID.)

Quote

And yes, the same difference is also on the other side of the isle. ... [A]re you telling me you think BOTH parties are the exactly the same as they were back in the 80's? Are you telling me that you don't think BOTH sides haven't become more Ideological?

I don't know what Cait will tell you, LotS, but I think Obama is a center-left Democrat, like Bill Clinton before him. Like Hillary would be after him. No one as liberal as you would like to believe Obama is would have done healthcare reform without single payer (aka, universal healthcare without the universal), or an omnibus budget deal that included cuts to social security, or the 8-year orgy of drone strikes on civilian targets, illegal surveillance/warrantless wiretapping, et al. He's not some hippie radical and he never was. He's a third way technocrat who loves nothing more than a good compromise if it gets the deal done.

And that is the OPPOSITE of what you are talking about.

Now if Bernie gets the nomination, then we can talk hippie liberal socialists who want to push the democratic party to a leftward ideological extreme in much the same way that the last several *decades* worth of Republican presidents and leaders (Reagan, Gingrich, W, Tea Party) have pushed their party to the extreme rightward flank. But that hasn't happened in the Democratic Party - yet . On the contrary, Bill Clinton's legacy is of pulling the party back to the center, where it largely remains - much to the chagrin of its base, which is why they overwhelmingly support Bernie.

View PostCait, on 17 February 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 17 February 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

However, since having the roles reversed isn't possible, to prove or disprove my theory, there really is no way to know for sure. Unless, of course, you want to literally throw Obama out, put a lame duck republican in, and do the same for the Senate????

All of that is just a guess.  You are guessing that Democrats would do exactly the same thing in today's climate.  It's a guess.  The only other time the circumstances were similar, they didn't do it.  That's the evidence we have. ...  

You can hate Democrats all you want.  Lots of people do.  But don't assuage your guilt by blithely saying "Democrats would do it too", because that is just the pablum the masses on the right feed themselves in order to make breaking the law palatable.

That's how Republicans rationalized Nixon, too. I can hear my mom and dad both declaring over the dinner table, circa the Oliver North hearings, "The Democrats do the same things Ollie and Nixon did but they get away with it!" Well, um, no. In point of fact, that is false.

LotS:

Quote

I don't hate "Democrats". I DO hate Obama, and think he is lower then whale s**t. I DO think the democrats are wrong on a lot of issue, but I don't hate them. In fact, about the only time I really have a problem with Democrats is when they want to reach into MY pocket take MY money and give it to someone else, who didn't earn MY money.

You realize the first income tax was passed by a Republican president, right? And that no Republican president will ever NOT use the income tax to reach into your pocket and take your money and give it to someone else who didn't earn it, right? The difference is in who we like to give it to. Dems like to give it to the needy. Republicans like to give it to billionaires, corporations, the military-industrial complex, et al.

Quote

Also, Obama's disrespect in not attending the funeral has just reignited my hatred for him, as you can probably tell. So now, while I was trying to be not so partisan...Now I don't give a crap. The Senate should make sure he doesn't get another appointee to the bench. Screw him.

Really? You think this is *Obama* snubbing the Scalias? Dude - it is transparently the other way around. Obama would love nothing more than an opportunity to be seen taking the high road but they hate his guts and don't want him anywhere near that funeral.

Edited by BklnScott, 18 February 2016 - 01:11 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#33 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 01:28 PM

Quote

I don't know what Cait will tell you, LotS, but I think Obama is a center-left Democrat, like Bill Clinton before him. Like Hillary would be after him. No one as liberal as you would like to believe Obama is would have done healthcare reform without single payer (aka, universal healthcare without the universal), or an omnibus budget deal that included cuts to social security, or the 8-year orgy of drone strikes on civilian targets, illegal surveillance/warrantless wiretapping, et al. He's not some hippie radical and he never was. He's a third way technocrat who loves nothing more than a good compromise if it gets the deal done.

And that is the OPPOSITE of what you are talking about.


Exactly.  Obama is a center left  Democrat, always has been.  You cover the list of why he's not that Liberal quite well, Scott.

I'll add one thing, the right has been kept in a constant state of panic over Obama's Liberal agenda and they never calmed down long enough to actually look at what he did do.

That, and the right does not understand Democrats at all.  There is no purity test for being a Democrat like there is for being a Republican.  Democrats have always been a big tent party, but they are still free enterprise capitalists.  Social programs do not equal Socialism.  People should do their homework, but I know it's easier to listen to Beck and Hannity for "the facts".


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#34 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 02:36 PM

Of course this stuff is all cyclical and it's fun to connect the dots.

When I was growing up, one party was widely seen as a pack of radicals so far out of touch with the mainstream as to be dangerous if they weren't also so ineffectual - but that party was not the GOP. And you can go all the way down the rabbit hole on that analogy. Recent foreign policy catastrophe - check. Far-left radicals perpetrating acts of politically-motivated domestic terror back then vs far-right radicals doing the same today. Party rhetoric suborning such acts. Etc. Etc.

I'm just saying - it took a long time for the Democratic Party to live down the radical taint it picked up in the early 70s.

Edited by BklnScott, 18 February 2016 - 02:37 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#35 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 02:46 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 18 February 2016 - 02:36 PM, said:

I'm just saying - it took a long time for the Democratic Party to live down the radical taint it picked up in the early 70s.

Sometimes I think we can thank Nixon for saving the Party.  Giving Nixon a break for a moment, he inherited Vietnam, a recession, and the political unrest on the left.  It wasn't an easy time.  

It's unfortunate that many times Presidents [and their legacies] aren't evaluated in the context of their tenure.  

It's also true that this stuff is cyclical. The pendulum rocks back and forth.  It's the ebb and flow of life and politics.  Like I said, somewhere, [LOL] the sky is not falling.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#36 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 04:45 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 18 February 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 17 February 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

Just because the democrats didn't do it back then, doesn't mean they wouldn't be doing what the GOP is doing today. Today's politics are very different from politics from the 80's.

How so?

Changing the rules of the Senate when Reid was in power, to the Nuclear Senate comes right to mind as an example.

Quote

Really? You think this is *Obama* snubbing the Scalias? Dude - it is transparently the other way around. Obama would love nothing more than an opportunity to be seen taking the high road but they hate his guts and don't want him anywhere near that funeral.

This is the first I'm hearing of that. And IF this is true, the solution is simple: You TELL the people why you aren't going, that the other Justices, or the family of Scalia, requested he not attend. No biggie. But, if as I suspect, if he's out golfing while the funeral is going on....I can see the optics now. Split screen on the TV, on the right side the funeral, on the left Obama golfing.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#37 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 04:47 PM

You do NOT announce to the world that the widow told you to F off. Come on.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#38 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 18 February 2016 - 05:08 PM

Quote

Changing the rules of the Senate when Reid was in power, to the Nuclear Senate comes right to mind as an example.


Do you just not understand that the Constitution gives the Senate and the House the power to make their own rules?  And, that by extension, whoever has the majority will make rules that enables them to stay in power?  I'm beginning to think that you don't understand politics and political science.  

LotS, EVERY Senate Majority leader tunes up the rules to benefit his party.  As far as Reid goes, he did nothing illegal, or unconstitutional.  That it might be bad politics is of course debatable, but it wasn't illegal or unconstitutional.  Just as McConnell making his tweeks in the rules won't be.

I can see you don't like it.  You're not alone in that.  But, to confuse political maneuvering with outright illegal behavior is not helping the political climate in our country.  There is a BIG difference between illegal behavior and political maneuvering.  

In this instance, the Constitution directs the Senate to advise and consent.  It's not some implied power/rule that each political party can dance around and debate.  It is specific.  It is a directed duty in the body of the constitution.  

Quote


Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He 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 the 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: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.


Use of the word "shall" is very important in legal matters.  It is NOT ambiguous or vague.  Shall is  direct and specific.  Just as it is in the language of the first amendment.  It is not implied.  It is specific.  You can't make a rule in Congress to avoid the direct order, but you can makes rules concerning procedure.  But, McConnell is not talking about procedural stuff.  He is saying he refuses to do his job at all.  That, my friend, is unconstitutional.

Politically this is laughable because he will of course backtrack, and use procedure to stall the nominations, just as every party has since the beginning of our Republic.  This was, and is, all posturing for the base of the Republican Party.  It's an election year.

But, because his mouth was running off before his brain kicked in, it could really backfire on him come election day.  It certainly rattled my cage and now I'm in it for this election cycle.  Prior to his nonsense, I was a by-stander.  Now I'm active.  I'm the kind of voter you never want to activate if you're the opposition.  I'm relentless once active.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#39 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 12:07 PM

LotS - I'm curious. I didn't know you were a Scalia fan. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the stuff he will be remembered for is pretty much all stuff you yourself are against, right?

He worked to ban abortion under all circumstances. (Indeed, he thought 1965's Griswold v Connecticut, which overturned state bans on birth control and articulated a constitutional right to privacy, was incorrectly decided.) And forget about his notorious crusade against gay marriage. This guy defended the Texas policemen who burst into the bedroom of two boyfriends in Dallas, arrested them, and charged them with being practicing homosexuals (aka sodomites). They were tried and convicted by the state of Texas and sent to jail. Scalia thought that was a good law and good public policy to boot and in no way a violation of the basic civil rights of these two men. Read his dissent in Lawrence v Texas. Anyone who defends Scalia or his memory must also defend that.

This was not a nice man. This was not a good man. This was not one of the five people you meet in heaven.

Edited by BklnScott, 19 February 2016 - 12:18 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#40 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:15 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 19 February 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

LotS - I'm curious. I didn't know you were a Scalia fan. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the stuff he will be remembered for is pretty much all stuff you yourself are against, right?


Oh I'm not a fan. But there IS such a thing as respect for the dead, even though you disagreed with them on some issues. Scalia did side more with the conservatives, so for THAT I am grateful. Even if it means taking bad rulings, IMO, with good ones. But this will be the first time in history that a US President refused to attend the funeral of a sitting US Supreme court judge. Not a retired one, but a sitting judge.

But, then again, Obama really is worth less then whale sh*t...so I guess expecting common respect and decency is asking too much from a piece of ocean bottom feces.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Scalia, SCOTUS, 2016, Obama

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users