Supreme Court Justice Scalia has passed away

#151
#151
Sandvol said:
I think the one way the Republicans could possibly frame this and delay any appointments is by saying that Obama has gotten to appoint two Justices and no President should have the influence on the court to appoint 1/3rd of the court. Don't know if it would work but worth trying. Everything will depend on the Republican Senate leaders who are mostly statists.
Click to expand...



LOL. They don't need a reason, fool.

They've blocked everything he has proposed, just because it's him. He could nominate Ann Coulter and they'd vote it down. There is NO CHANCE they approve anyone he nominates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#152
#152
SpaceCoastVol said:
You are right when you say there is no difference in any of them. We just have to figure the lesser of the evils. Too bad we don't hold the ones that we can do something about accountable. Congress. Your guys sucks. mine is great. There is the problem.
Click to expand...

Yet from all of your posts on here, you seem to promote the partisan politics and the belief that one side is truly that much greater than the others.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#155
#155
Two thoughts:

1. First, on Scalia. I'm not an expert on the Supreme Court or on Scalia. What little I know, however, gives me the impression that he was a very sharp mind, who often delivered very well-thought-out, well-articulated opinions, even if I personally disagreed. This makes my other assessment of him seem somewhat counterintuitive, as he, while highly intelligent, also seemed to lack common sense in some of his rulings. Two examples that strike me are the rulings on Citizens United and the guy who claimed his rights had been violated since the young female victim didn't actually appear in court before him (can't remember the case name). In the first case, Scalia's notion of free speech defied common sense (he seems to associate more free speech with more money and therefore what our Founders intended, ignoring the fact that this means less free speech for those without money), while in the second, he reads the laws too "by the book," thinking video evidence of the girl testifying not as sufficient as an in-court testimony, completely ignoring the fact that those laws were most likely drafted before we even had videos or audio recordings. So, my assessment of Scalia is a guy who was a sharp mind, but perhaps too "by the book." I suppose "by the book" is what we want out of our judges, but, as I cited above, being too "by the book" can actually be a bit too much of a restraint on common sense.

2. I hope upon all hopes that Obama nominates a moderate judge. I know the judge will most likely be left-leaning, even if a moderate, but that's fine. But as long as the judge is primarily a moderate, it will suffice. If he elects a judge that is too far left, then I hope it gets struck down. This being said, if Republicans are seriously going to hold up this nomination for a year and keep the Supreme Court handcuffed for a year, then every bit of criticism that comes their way for such a decision will be warranted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#156
#156
I just want a judge who will honor the 4th amendment. Whatever happened to that?
 
#157
#157
If Obama is smart, he'll nominate Sri Srinivasan.

The Senate confirmed him 97-0 a few years ago for the DC Appellate Court, and he is fairly moderate. There is no way to go back on that without appearing obstructionist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#158
#158
UTCVol said:
If Obama is smart, he'll nominate Sri Srinivasan.

The Senate confirmed him 97-0 a few years ago for the DC Appellate Court, and he is fairly moderate. There is no way to go back on that without appearing obstructionist.
Click to expand...

This is who Jeffrey Toobin, a very sharp legal analyst at CNN, said he thought Obama would most likely nominate.
 
#160
#160
Vol8188 said:
Yet from all of your posts on here, you seem to promote the partisan politics and the belief that one side is truly that much greater than the others.
Click to expand...
It might come across that way, but that is not truly the case. I just think that either of the frontrunners of the socialist party will destroy this country. I don't think the Republican party is better in many ways, and It believe that the primary system has polarized the party by essentially giving the religious right (only because they vote more in those primaries) a bigger say in the eventual candidate. Ben Carson or Kasich are the only ones that I "like" at this point, but neither are gonna win the nomination.

If I am partisan though, it is purely anti-party. The liberals are insane. Fire away.
 
#161
#161
lawgator1 said:
LOL. They don't need a reason, fool.

They've blocked everything he has proposed, just because it's him. He could nominate Ann Coulter and they'd vote it down. There is NO CHANCE they approve anyone he nominates.
Click to expand...

Bet ya a stake dinner they won't block anyone for long. they are far too gutless to do that. It would mean their phoney baloney jobs.

Yes, I know how I spelled it.
 
#163
#163
lawgator1 said:
LOL. They don't need a reason, fool.

They've blocked everything he has proposed, just because it's him. He could nominate Ann Coulter and they'd vote it down. There is NO CHANCE they approve anyone he nominates.
Click to expand...
Is Ann Coulter a lawyer?
 
#165
#165
This will be a epic flight and being an election year...will be influence th courts for the next 20 years especially if a dem wins in the fall.. Liberal judges are appointed to make law that does is not on the US constitution Look for guns rights to be challenged ASAP
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#167
#167
lawgator1 said:
LOL. They don't need a reason, fool.

They've blocked everything he has proposed, just because it's him. He could nominate Ann Coulter and they'd vote it down. There is NO CHANCE they approve anyone he nominates.
Click to expand...

I would hope so. She is a loon
 
#168
#168
lawgator1 said:
LOL. They don't need a reason, fool.

They've blocked everything he has proposed, just because it's him. He could nominate Ann Coulter and they'd vote it down. There is NO CHANCE they approve anyone he nominates.
Click to expand...

If Ann Coulter got anywhere near that building in an official capacity, it would be insurrection time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#170
#170
davethevol said:
This is a scary time. If Obama gets to make another appointment then they will finally be able to come after guns.
Click to expand...

Name one instance where dems confiscated guns. repubs have demi goded guns far to long. repubs wrote and past the first gun control legislation. :idea:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#171
#171
lawgator1 said:
LOL. They don't need a reason, fool.

They've blocked everything he has proposed, just because it's him. He could nominate Ann Coulter and they'd vote it down. There is NO CHANCE they approve anyone he nominates.
Click to expand...

You are the fool. It his because of his beliefs, not because it is him.

You 2 cent ambulance chasing buffoon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#172
#172
orangeluvr said:
Name one instance where dems confiscated guns. repubs have demi goded guns far to long. repubs wrote and past the first gun control legislation. :idea:
Click to expand...

It's not that they have. It's that they would if they could.

Their guiding light to "gun control that works" is the Australian gun buyback which was for all intents and purposes, confiscation.
 
#173
#173
CNCVol88 said:
It's not that they have. It's that they would if they could.

Their guiding light to "gun control that works" is the Australian gun buyback which was for all intents and purposes, confiscation.
Click to expand...
So do you mean to tell me that there is no gun violence in Oz? Hmmmm I guess it works. Probably just like New York. No guns there. Ax Mr bloomberg.
 
#174
#174
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top