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

#41 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:19 PM

^Once again, you're assuming he was invited.

#42 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:21 PM

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

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.

Just for the record, speaking as a conservative evangelical Christian, those rulings are horrible, and the people who advocate such positions are doing so in contradiction to both the teachings of Christ and the foundations of this country. The Bible never says anything about Christians punishing those outside the Church who do things we believe to be wrong. And the United States was founded in part to get away from European countries starting religious wars every ten minutes because a new faction had control over the government.

And banning abortion under all circumstances is just as morally bankrupt as allowing it without any restrictions would be. Except that the former is a position people are actually advocating today, and the latter is not.

Just so I've said that.

Edited by Omega, 19 February 2016 - 01:25 PM.


#43 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:24 PM

View PostOmega, on 19 February 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

^Once again, you're assuming he was invited.

If he wasn't invited, then there would have been no need for Liar Secretary Earnest to do the verbal Olympics on the issue. He should've just said, "The President wasn't invited." But the fact that they are sending the vice President tells me that the President was invited, and he in typical fashion reverted to his natural position of being human whale feces.

edited to add:

Guess we'll just have to wait til tomorrow to see if Golfing was more important to Obama then attending the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Judge.

Edited by Lord of the Sword, 19 February 2016 - 01:25 PM.

"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

#44 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:28 PM

^Except that doing that would take attention away from the funeral, and make it more about how Scalia (or his widow) hated Obama that much. (Hypothetically.) Which is more disrespectful than voluntarily not going would be.

Besides, if he'd actually gone, do you honestly believe the story would be "Oh, look at good guy Obama being respectful?" No. You know what it would be. "Obama makes Scalia funeral about him just by showing up! How disrespectful!" Absolutely nothing Obama can ever do will be reported positively. This has been the case since 2007 some time. It's inherently dishonest.

Edited by Omega, 19 February 2016 - 01:59 PM.


#45 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:33 PM

Further, Presidents commonly don't attend funerals of retired justices. I'm not entirely clear on why it makes a damn bit of difference that he died on the bench rather than ten minutes after retiring. Is he somehow more worthy of respect because he died earlier?

#46 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:46 PM

Yet further, I would like a documented source on the claim that Presidents have always attended the funerals of sitting justices. I can't find one. The best I've found is that Mygyn Kylly said she couldn't find an instance. But I trust her research about as far as... well, anyone else's at Fox News. Fifty justices have died on the bench in the last 220 years, but only two in the last sixty years, and I can't find records anywhere of what Presidents attended what funerals in the 19th century. Can you?

You've been lied to, LotS. Again. When will you stop believing the same people who lie to you over and over?

#47 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:51 PM

AND FURTHER YET, if Obama really wanted to disrespect Scalia, he'd be using his bully pulpit to point out all the scummy horrible things the man did in his time on the court, and all the damage he did to civil rights in this country. He's not. You're letting your hatred lead you into bad assumptions and override your reasoning process.

Edited by Omega, 19 February 2016 - 01:52 PM.


#48 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 02:08 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 19 February 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

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.

And indeed the President said very generous and appropriate things about Justice Scalia.

There's also a long tradition of celebrating the death of tyrants - which, to be crystal f***ing clear, I did.  With bells on. Respect for the dead? Ha. He made it his life's work to keep people like me oppressed. He can rot in hell.

Quote

Scalia did side more with the conservatives, so for THAT I am grateful. Even if it means taking bad rulings, IMO, with good ones.

That's easy to say when you got no skin the game.

View PostLord of the Sword, on 19 February 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

If he wasn't invited, then there would have been no need for Liar Secretary Earnest to do the verbal Olympics on the issue. He should've just said, "The President wasn't invited."

If you're fair, I think you have to admit that the same right wing voices would be squealing either way. Either he disrespected Scalia's memory by refusing to attend or he disrespected the widow by revealing what should've rightly remained private - a request that the President stay away because Mrs Scalia hates him as much as her husband did (and as much as you, LotS).

Attempting to put politics aside, I feel like Obama did exactly what he should have done whether he was invited or not - he made the appropriate respectful noises and then took himself, his office, his conflict with Scalia, et al, off the menu, ensuring a controversy-free funeral. And for this you repeatedly call him a piece of whale sh*t.

In any case, Obama still gets to fill Scalia's seat and that's what matters.

Quote

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

#49 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 02:54 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 19 February 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:


That's easy to say when you got no skin the game.

That's a fair and valid point.

Quote

In any case, Obama still gets to fill Scalia's seat and that's what matters.

Correction. Obama get to nominate a possible replacement for Scalia's seat. Whether that nomination gets confirmed is still up in the air.
"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

#50 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 03:30 PM

I was reading this article about presidents attending the funerals of Justices.. and was reminded of something.

http://mediamatters....n-at-oba/208693

Quote

The White House on Thursday tried to fend off criticism of President Obama's decision not to attend the funeral this weekend of Justice Antonin Scalia, but even some administration allies lamented the move as a missed opportunity to ease the partisan warfare that has followed the justice's death.
[...]

But Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who once clerked for Justice Scalia and shares the same faith, said that Mr. Obama made the right decision. Mr. Whelan emphasized that traditional Catholic funerals are deeply religious affairs during which even eulogies are discouraged.


"For Catholics, a funeral Mass is first and foremost a funeral, not an event of state," Mr. Whelan said.

The Supreme Court gives great deference to historical precedent, but history provides conflicting clues about whether a presidential visit to the funeral is appropriate.


While President George W. Bush attended the funeral in 2005 of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who was the last justice to die while on the bench, funerals of other justices have passed without the presence of either the president or the vice president.

Michael Moreland, a law professor at Villanova University who is Catholic and was on the White House staff of Mr. Bush, said both sides had valid points.


The event on Friday at the Supreme Court is the more appropriate place for a presidential visit, he said, but Mr. Obama's attendance at the funeral "could have been a nice occasion for reducing polarization of D.C.'s political culture." [New York Times, 2/18/16]


Occam's razor, usually the simplest explanation is the right one.


A Catholic funeral mass is a very solemn occasion.  No one really speaks.  It's not a time to get together and pay respects to the deceased.  it is a deeply religious ceremony.  I think, I now agree.  It's not a state funeral that Obama is failing to attend.  It's a deeply religious occasion.  Now, I actually think Obama decided correctly, and I had my doubts.  His attendance at the Supreme Court was the official State occasion.  


This is not a secular funeral.  It's a religious one, and one where no one but the Priest actually speaks.  Biden attending the funeral is perfect.  Biden is a Catholic.  It's all rather well thought out in fact.

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


#51 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 05:28 PM

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Scalia's funeral tomorrow is scheduled to be picketed by the Westboro Bapist Church...

(In case someone doesn't know who they are.... They are a Church that is almost entirely composed of one large family and in-laws, with a whole bunch of lawyers among them, that are known for picketing the funerals of people they perceive in various ways as not supporting their religious world view...  this has included funerals of gay people, gay murder victims, celebrities, American soldiers, among others.)

In response some cities and states have tried to produce laws limiting funeral protests, using distance or timing typically. They follow those laws, as far as I understand. However one deceased's family sued for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.... Snyder v. Phelps went to the United States Supreme Court, and it was decided March 2011. USSC voted 8-1(Alito dissenting) in favour of the Westboro Baptist church.

Edited by sierraleone, 19 February 2016 - 05:31 PM.

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

#52 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 07:14 PM

Being (probably) the only one here who has had to work one of these presidential security deals, I have to say its probably good he isnt going.

Whereever the President goes, its an absolute circus. Pretty much the entire church would be shut down, each person would have go go through a security check, bomb dogs, everything.

By not going, he is allowing those who loved him to mourn in peace, without being scanned by a metal detector.

#53 243Skunk

243Skunk

    A real stinker

  • Islander
  • 357 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 07:23 PM

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

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.

Priscilla Owen.

And she wasnt the only one. Nuff said.

#54 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 08:04 PM

View Post243Skunk, on 19 February 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:


Priscilla Owen.

And she wasn't the only one. Nuff said.

Interesting citation, and a good read for anyone who wants to follow up.

https://en.wikipedia.../Priscilla_Owen

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


#55 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 20 February 2016 - 01:42 PM

and, I imagine this is the beginning of the Court's march back to the center, now that Scalia is gone.

http://www.addicting...-n-c-districts/

Quote


The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request to stay a ruling that two congressional districts in North Carolina were racially gerrymandered in a 2011 redistricting and needed to be redrawn within two weeks.

A panel of federal judges this month barred elections in the majority black districts, the 1st and the 12th, until new maps are approved, calling the current maps unconstitutional. Congressional primaries in the state are set for March 15.


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


#56 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 06:48 PM

http://www.nytimes.c...court-seat.html

Quote

Third, it is preposterous to accuse Mr. Obama of causing a “bitter struggle” by nominating someone who will not be confirmed. The only reason a nominee would not be confirmed is that the Senate has pre-emptively decided to block any nominee sight unseen. Mr. Obama is once again the only adult in the room, carrying out his constitutional obligation while Senate Republicans scramble to dig up examples of Democrats trying to block nominees. But those examples show only that Democratic senators have pushed hard for Republican presidents to pick ideologically moderate nominees. Until now, neither party has ever vowed to shut down the nomination process entirely, even before it has begun.

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


#57 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 08:20 AM

http://www.politico....nee-1992-219635

Funny how the Vice President seems to have agreed with the GOP position, back in 92.
"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

#58 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 11:23 AM

Posted Image

This is what the next few months of Obama trolling imbecile Chuck Grassley and Turtle McConnell will look like.

Edited by BklnScott, 25 February 2016 - 11:24 AM.

Quote

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

#59 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 12:18 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 25 February 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

http://www.politico....nee-1992-219635

Funny how the Vice President seems to have agreed with the GOP position, back in 92.

And what exactly does this have to do with what is happening now?  This doesn't mean anything, and you should know better.  The "He did it too", meme is meaningless, and it is NOT a justification to try and abrogate constitutional duties.

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


#60 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 25 February 2016 - 04:02 PM

http://thinkprogress...-election-year/

Quote

But Biden’s full speech undermines their claim. Rather than urging his colleagues to deny Bush’s potential nominee a hearing, Biden was bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process — hence his suggestion of not holding a hearing in the heat of a presidential election — and what he saw as Bush’s refusal to properly consult with the Senate in selecting a nominee. In fact, just 10 minutes after calling for temporary inaction on Bush’s candidate, Biden actually promised to consider a moderate Supreme Court nominee.
“I believe that so long as the public continues to split its confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course both for the White House and for the Senate,” he said. “Therefore I stand by my position, Mr. President, if the President [George H.W. Bush] consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justices Kennedy and Souter.”

Lied to. AGAIN. Gonna stop listening to people who lie to you yet?



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