Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution says with the advise and consent.
No where does it say shall appoint Judges, it says he shall nominate.

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.


>>>>

 

[peach174]

Toobin: Scalia Devoted His Professional Life To Making America Less Fair, Less Tolerant

Wow!
from the article - devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy.

He was one of the Judges who voted for freedom of speech for those who wanted to burn the Flag.
He didn't like it but he said it was their Constitutional right.

"When, in 2003, the Court ruled that gay people could no longer be thrown in prison for having consensual sex, Scalia dissented, and wrote, “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

So Scalia wanted to throw homosexuals in jail because they were pursuing happiness their way..this is a Constitutional Right [the Right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness]....Scalia wanted the Intrusive Government to throw their ass in Prison...
Scalia helped gut the Voting Rights Act

He said that the decision ''effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation'' and it seems he is right.
Without moral legislation you might as well not have the Constitution.
If gays have sodomy rights, then down the line so do those that practice bestiality.
That is what he was saying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

 

[Faun]

The answer to a question is an answer, not an another question.

Again... should Democrats not allow a Republican president to fill any vacated seats? According to you, that is their right.

If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.

Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.

So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.

I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.

there is no one "right of center" running for president.

but you should probably stick to topics you understand since you clearly don't have a clue as to the fact that a seat on the supreme court will not be not left open.

Where did I say that there was one running right now?
Faun and I were talking about a hypothetical situation.

A hypothetical lasting 4 years, the duration of that hypothetical Republican president's term, which you now deny admitting to.

So you are or are not in favor of Senate Democrats denying a Republican president their Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court judges?

I'm asking again because you first said yes before you said no.

Which is it? To be clear... for 4 years while the Republican is president....

 

[peach174]

Oh Brother 4 years?
and you call me demented.
The Senate leader put the timeline down when he said after the Nov. elections.

The Senate Majority leader said the next President. That would be after January 20th, 2017. Obama is President until noon on that day.


>>>>>

Ok so after the next President.
The polls are pretty close for one way or the other.
What Americans Think About Voting on Supreme Court Nominee
In a CBS poll released this morning, 47 percent of voters said they would like to see the next justice appointed by President Obama, while 46 percent said they would like to wait until a new president is elected in November. In a NBC/WSJ poll released Wednesday, 43 percent of respondents said the Senate should vote this year on a nominee while 42 percent think the matter should be decided by the next president.

 

[peach174]

If it was under the same exact circumstances yes it is their right also, which it exactly what I said.

Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.

So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.

I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.

there is no one "right of center" running for president.

but you should probably stick to topics you understand since you clearly don't have a clue as to the fact that a seat on the supreme court will not be not left open.

Where did I say that there was one running right now?
Faun and I were talking about a hypothetical situation.

A hypothetical lasting 4 years, the duration of that hypothetical Republican president's term, which you now deny admitting to.

So you are or are not in favor of Senate Democrats denying a Republican president their Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court judges?

I'm asking again because you first said yes before you said no.

Which is it? To be clear... for 4 years while the Republican is president....

You are the one trying to twist it.

 

[Faun]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

It's refreshing to see someone who actually gets what this issue is really about.

 

[Faun]

Circumstances are irrelevant. Even you posted how the Senate needs no excuse or reason for why the reject a nominee.

So regardless of the circumstances, what you're saying is that you're ok with Senate Democrats shutting down the confirmation process until a Democrat is elected president.

I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.

there is no one "right of center" running for president.

but you should probably stick to topics you understand since you clearly don't have a clue as to the fact that a seat on the supreme court will not be not left open.

Where did I say that there was one running right now?
Faun and I were talking about a hypothetical situation.

A hypothetical lasting 4 years, the duration of that hypothetical Republican president's term, which you now deny admitting to.

So you are or are not in favor of Senate Democrats denying a Republican president their Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court judges?

I'm asking again because you first said yes before you said no.

Which is it? To be clear... for 4 years while the Republican is president....

You are the one trying to twist it.

I twisted nothing.

That hypothetical never changed. From the start it was .... do you think it would be ok if a Democrat Senate refused to confirm a Republican president until the next president was seated. Nyvin, who initially asked you, even specified that could mean leaving the SC seat open until 2021.

So? Yes or no? Is that ok with you? If not, why not?

 

[Faun]

Oh Brother 4 years?
and you call me demented.
The Senate leader put the timeline down when he said after the Nov. elections.

The Senate Majority leader said the next President. That would be after January 20th, 2017. Obama is President until noon on that day.


>>>>>

Ok so after the next President.
The polls are pretty close for one way or the other.
What Americans Think About Voting on Supreme Court Nominee
In a CBS poll released this morning, 47 percent of voters said they would like to see the next justice appointed by President Obama, while 46 percent said they would like to wait until a new president is elected in November. In a NBC/WSJ poll released Wednesday, 43 percent of respondents said the Senate should vote this year on a nominee while 42 percent think the matter should be decided by the next president.

If it's polls you want, by a margin of 58% to 21%, people do not want the Senate to reject considering all of Obama's nominees.

Voters Say Senate Should Vote on All Presidential Nominees - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[peach174]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

What he said was;
“the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office.
This is too important of an issue to be arguing over semantics.

And why would that be?
Perhaps because of his past nominations in the last 7 years and him putting Politics over what is good for the county.
Look both sides are very volatile right now.
This is not the right situation to elect someone who will have a lifetime postiton.
This would be better with the next President be it a Dem or Repub.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You are correct. The Constitution says the President has to get the Senate's consent. Nowhere does it say the Senate has to give it.

And the rules of the Senate - as the Constitution specifically provides for the Senate to set - say that the leadership of the Senate gets to decide what does and doesn't get addressed.

Ultimately, the voters will decide when delaying becomes malfeasance.

maybe

For a delay of a year, I think voters would decide with their vote whether the senate is just exercising its prerogative to schedule it's work or violating it's constitutional responsibility. I would think that if the Senate delayed long enough then the courts would decide that the Senate was overstepping it's authority. There is a point in which delaying a job becomes synonymous with not doing the job.

yes yet most people are not that political and really care all that much about how the sausage is made

maybe if the left can shake up the hive enough perhaps then

but again when the hive is shook both right and left bees get excited

I think the only really effective attack democrats can launch is against republican senators up for election. They can use the Senate's lack of action as more evidence that the republican party is the part of no, but they've already done that.

the part of no is a red herring that has scared away or made excuses for progressive and establishment republicans

half the country wants them to say no and has been rejecting them saying yes

 

[Faun]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

What he said was;
“the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office.
This is too important of an issue to be arguing over semantics.

And why would that be?
Perhaps because of his past nominations in the last 7 years and him putting Politics over what is good for the county.
Look both sides are very volatile right now.
This is not the right situation to elect someone who will have a lifetime postiton.
This would be better with the next President be it a Dem or Repub.

Are you on drugs?? How could that be anytime before January 20th, 2017; when he said, until we have a new president?

I will say I am beginning to understand why you're posting some of the nonsense you're posting though.

 

[peach174]

I would say that if it was a right of center Republican President who would be just as much as a divisive President at we have now and the Dems had the majority of the Senate and a well respected liberal leaning Supreme Court Judge died suddenly (lets use Gingsburg as an example) during a very heated and very usual election season then yes they have the right to do so also.

there is no one "right of center" running for president.

but you should probably stick to topics you understand since you clearly don't have a clue as to the fact that a seat on the supreme court will not be not left open.

Where did I say that there was one running right now?
Faun and I were talking about a hypothetical situation.

A hypothetical lasting 4 years, the duration of that hypothetical Republican president's term, which you now deny admitting to.

So you are or are not in favor of Senate Democrats denying a Republican president their Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court judges?

I'm asking again because you first said yes before you said no.

Which is it? To be clear... for 4 years while the Republican is president....

You are the one trying to twist it.

I twisted nothing.

That hypothetical never changed. From the start it was .... do you think it would be ok if a Democrat Senate refused to confirm a Republican president until the next president was seated. Nyvin, who initially asked you, even specified that could mean leaving the SC seat open until 2021.

So? Yes or no? Is that ok with you? If not, why not?

You both are pushing it past what the situation really is.
This will be settled one way or the other in the next few weeks or by the start of a new President.
Nothing on the Supreme Court will be open till 2021.

 

[Faun]

there is no one "right of center" running for president.

but you should probably stick to topics you understand since you clearly don't have a clue as to the fact that a seat on the supreme court will not be not left open.

Where did I say that there was one running right now?
Faun and I were talking about a hypothetical situation.

A hypothetical lasting 4 years, the duration of that hypothetical Republican president's term, which you now deny admitting to.

So you are or are not in favor of Senate Democrats denying a Republican president their Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court judges?

I'm asking again because you first said yes before you said no.

Which is it? To be clear... for 4 years while the Republican is president....

You are the one trying to twist it.

I twisted nothing.

That hypothetical never changed. From the start it was .... do you think it would be ok if a Democrat Senate refused to confirm a Republican president until the next president was seated. Nyvin, who initially asked you, even specified that could mean leaving the SC seat open until 2021.

So? Yes or no? Is that ok with you? If not, why not?

You both are pushing it past what the situation really is.
This will be settled one way or the other in the next few weeks or by the start of a new President.
Nothing on the Supreme Court will be open till 2021.

No, I'm pushing this new precedent being proposed by Senate leadership.

They're claiming it's their privilege to deny the current president his Constitutional authority to appoint a new SC justice.

This has never happened before. This new precedent sets the stage for Democrats to reject every nominee by a Republican president, should one get elected in November. I'm just trying to determine if you're a hypocrite or if you'd be ok with Democrats pulling such a stunt.

 

[peach174]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

What he said was;
“the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office.
This is too important of an issue to be arguing over semantics.

And why would that be?
Perhaps because of his past nominations in the last 7 years and him putting Politics over what is good for the county.
Look both sides are very volatile right now.
This is not the right situation to elect someone who will have a lifetime postiton.
This would be better with the next President be it a Dem or Repub.

Are you on drugs?? How could that be anytime before January 20th, 2017; when he said, until we have a new president?

I will say I am beginning to understand why you're posting some of the nonsense you're posting though.

Lets see
Nov. 8th is the election, the people have elected who they want as President.
If they elect a Democrat to be President. I don't see why they then can't accept and vote on who President Obama wants after the November election.
I am interpreting that statement as both ways to look at what he meant.

 

[peach174]

Where did I say that there was one running right now?
Faun and I were talking about a hypothetical situation.

A hypothetical lasting 4 years, the duration of that hypothetical Republican president's term, which you now deny admitting to.

So you are or are not in favor of Senate Democrats denying a Republican president their Constitutional authority to appoint Supreme Court judges?

I'm asking again because you first said yes before you said no.

Which is it? To be clear... for 4 years while the Republican is president....

You are the one trying to twist it.

I twisted nothing.

That hypothetical never changed. From the start it was .... do you think it would be ok if a Democrat Senate refused to confirm a Republican president until the next president was seated. Nyvin, who initially asked you, even specified that could mean leaving the SC seat open until 2021.

So? Yes or no? Is that ok with you? If not, why not?

You both are pushing it past what the situation really is.
This will be settled one way or the other in the next few weeks or by the start of a new President.
Nothing on the Supreme Court will be open till 2021.

No, I'm pushing this new precedent being proposed by Senate leadership.

They're claiming it's their privilege to deny the current president his Constitutional authority to appoint a new SC justice.

This has never happened before. This new precedent sets the stage for Democrats to reject every nominee by a Republican president, should one get elected in November. I'm just trying to determine if you're a hypocrite or if you'd be ok with Democrats pulling such a stunt.

You are also assuming that another Supreme Court Judge would die while in office during a heated election year.
This has also not happened before.
It is up to congress to put in new legislation over this rare issue.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

What he said was;
“the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office.
This is too important of an issue to be arguing over semantics.

And why would that be?
Perhaps because of his past nominations in the last 7 years and him putting Politics over what is good for the county.
Look both sides are very volatile right now.
This is not the right situation to elect someone who will have a lifetime postiton.
This would be better with the next President be it a Dem or Repub.

Serious question, do you even know how Supreme Court nominations work or are you just trying to repeat talking points that you think support your position that Obama shouldn't get to nominate another Justice?

You said, "That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office." The next President isn't seated until Janaury 20th, 2017. In no way was McConnell indicating they would provide advise and consent proceedings after the November election. He clearly says it should be the next President, which is not in the Constitution BTW, and the next President can make a nomination after the November elections because they don't become President until January 20th.


>>>>

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

What he said was;
“the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office.
This is too important of an issue to be arguing over semantics.

And why would that be?
Perhaps because of his past nominations in the last 7 years and him putting Politics over what is good for the county.
Look both sides are very volatile right now.
This is not the right situation to elect someone who will have a lifetime postiton.
This would be better with the next President be it a Dem or Repub.

Are you on drugs?? How could that be anytime before January 20th, 2017; when he said, until we have a new president?

I will say I am beginning to understand why you're posting some of the nonsense you're posting though.

Lets see
Nov. 8th is the election, the people have elected who they want as President.
If they elect a Democrat to be President. I don't see why they then can't accept and vote on who President Obama wants after the November election.
I am interpreting that statement as both ways to look at what he meant.

Bullshit! You're tap dancing now with your trousers down around you ankles!

 

[Faun]

No - that is what you think I am saying.
That is not what I am saying at all.
It is not hard to figure out that McConnell set the time till after the Nov. election and the country is pretty close to be evenly split on this issue. It's only right to wait till after this very volatile and very strange election season is over.
It is also their Constitutional right to not consent.

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

What he said was;
“the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office.
This is too important of an issue to be arguing over semantics.

And why would that be?
Perhaps because of his past nominations in the last 7 years and him putting Politics over what is good for the county.
Look both sides are very volatile right now.
This is not the right situation to elect someone who will have a lifetime postiton.
This would be better with the next President be it a Dem or Repub.

Are you on drugs?? How could that be anytime before January 20th, 2017; when he said, until we have a new president?

I will say I am beginning to understand why you're posting some of the nonsense you're posting though.

Lets see
Nov. 8th is the election, the people have elected who they want as President.
If they elect a Democrat to be President. I don't see why they then can't accept and vote on who President Obama wants after the November election.
I am interpreting that statement as both ways to look at what he meant.

You're too fucking demented.

Hell, you don't even understand what, until we have a next president, means.

<smh>

Here's a clue for you -- it means not Obama.

But since you have no problem with the Senate barring a president from appointing Supreme Court justices, I can only guess you have no problem with Senate Democrats saying the same thing to a Republican president in January, should we end up with one.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Please stop trying to portray that there will be advise and consent proceedings after the November elections, that is false. What was said was that they will not do anything until the next President is seated which is after January.

The question isn't does the Senate have to confirm someone they don't feel is qualified. The issue is they have said they will not undertake any proceedings based on who the President is, not based on the qualifications of the candidate nominated. THAT is the danger.


>>>>

What he said was;
“the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office.
This is too important of an issue to be arguing over semantics.

And why would that be?
Perhaps because of his past nominations in the last 7 years and him putting Politics over what is good for the county.
Look both sides are very volatile right now.
This is not the right situation to elect someone who will have a lifetime postiton.
This would be better with the next President be it a Dem or Repub.

Serious question, do you even know how Supreme Court nominations work or are you just trying to repeat talking points that you think support your position that Obama shouldn't get to nominate another Justice?

You said, "That could mean till after Nov. election or it could mean until the next President is in office." The next President isn't seated until Janaury 20th, 2017. In no way was McConnell indicating they would provide advise and consent proceedings after the November election. He clearly says it should be the next President, which is not in the Constitution BTW, and the next President can make a nomination after the November elections because they don't become President until January 20th.


>>>>

more power to em

hope for once Mitch has the balls to keep his word

time will tell