Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[JoeB131]

Nice language. And as for your claim to once be a GOPer.....sure you were.

And as for the GOP only working for the rich.......that's the spin I was talking about.

the conservative ideology overall....enables anyone to become rich if they are willing to sacrifice, take some chances and not have a sense of entitlement.

Yeah, then why do all the "Rich" Republicans end up being guys who inherited their fortunes from their daddies - Bush, Romney, Trump. Self-made millionaires, not so much.

Man, you are one stupid fuck-stick, aren't you, Brain in a Jar?

So yes, in a way, they work for the rich...because their goal is to ensure all have a chance....but to ALSO ensure that none feel it should be given to them.

Clean up your act. When you curse, it shows frustration and weakness.

Profanity is the only way to deal with the terminally fucking stupid.

Here's the thing. We used to have a middle class in this country, not because the rich decided to give us one, but because we DEMANDED IT. I know they probably didn't cover this in whatever Home School you went to, but look up "The Labor Movement" and "The Progressive Era". Even REPUBLICANS understood the need for a vibrant middle class.

Here are some quotes - From Republicans...

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

*"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

See, these where guys who got it, Fuck-stick. Now, let's look at what the GOP Stands for now in terms of looking out for working people and the middle class...

"I like to be able to fire people!" - Mitt Romney.

"You're Fired" - Donald Trump.

 

[Boss]

Ooooooo..... let's RUN away from the topic now!! Nice move, Joey!

 

[Kondor3]

Fun, ain't it?

I actually LOVE IT........Upped a LOT the chances of democrats regaining the senate....

Enjoy your misplaced hunch while you can... ;-)

 

[hadit]

Nice language. And as for your claim to once be a GOPer.....sure you were.

And as for the GOP only working for the rich.......that's the spin I was talking about.

the conservative ideology overall....enables anyone to become rich if they are willing to sacrifice, take some chances and not have a sense of entitlement.

Yeah, then why do all the "Rich" Republicans end up being guys who inherited their fortunes from their daddies - Bush, Romney, Trump. Self-made millionaires, not so much.

Man, you are one stupid fuck-stick, aren't you, Brain in a Jar?

So yes, in a way, they work for the rich...because their goal is to ensure all have a chance....but to ALSO ensure that none feel it should be given to them.

Clean up your act. When you curse, it shows frustration and weakness.

Profanity is the only way to deal with the terminally fucking stupid.

Here's the thing. We used to have a middle class in this country, not because the rich decided to give us one, but because we DEMANDED IT. I know they probably didn't cover this in whatever Home School you went to, but look up "The Labor Movement" and "The Progressive Era". Even REPUBLICANS understood the need for a vibrant middle class.

Here are some quotes - From Republicans...

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

*"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and they are stupid." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

See, these where guys who got it, Fuck-stick. Now, let's look at what the GOP Stands for now in terms of looking out for working people and the middle class...

"I like to be able to fire people!" - Mitt Romney.

"You're Fired" - Donald Trump.

LOL at you ignoring Trump and Romney making huge gains with what they were given. Self made millionaires? Try billionaires.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL at you ignoring Trump and Romney making huge gains with what they were given. Self made millionaires? Try billionaires.

No, I don't ignore the fact Romney and Trump used their money to fuck over working people.

In fact, I think it's actually pretty fucked up, don't you?

Romney got rich, and Joe Soptic's wife died because Romney cancelled her insurance? Why are you cheering this?

Trump gets to build a gaudy casino, and Vera Coking loses her house.

This is the kind of thing you think is great? this is the kind of America Antonin Scalia thought was okay.

 

[JoeB131]

Ooooooo..... let's RUN away from the topic now!! Nice move, Joey!

This is the topic, guy. Do we want a Supreme Court that works for the rich or for working Americans?

Now, I'm sure you sit next to the biggest toxic waste dump in the country and think you've got life so good that big corporations will bless you with their toxic waste.

 

[Kondor3]

Ooooooo..... let's RUN away from the topic now!! Nice move, Joey!

This is the topic, guy. Do we want a Supreme Court that works for the rich or for working Americans?

Now, I'm sure you sit next to the biggest toxic waste dump in the country and think you've got life so good that big corporations will bless you with their toxic waste.

We want a Supreme Court that interprets law objectively and dispassionately, not a Liberal political organ that engages in nonstop Judicial Activism.

In all likelihood, the latter is what we will get if the Senate caves-in and confirms Obumble's nominee.

No thank you.

 

[nat4900]

We want a Supreme Court that interprets law objectively and dispassionately, not a Liberal political organ that engages in nonstop Judicial Activism.

In all likelihood, the latter is what we will get if the Senate caves-in and confirms Obumble's nominee.

No thank you.

In your first sentence you state a very sane opinion.....and then you go off in your partisan bullshit.......

Are you aware that for over two decades the SC has been a conservative "political organ that engages in nonstop judicial activism"????

 

[Kondor3]

We want a Supreme Court that interprets law objectively and dispassionately, not a Liberal political organ that engages in nonstop Judicial Activism.

In all likelihood, the latter is what we will get if the Senate caves-in and confirms Obumble's nominee.

No thank you.

In your first sentence you state a very sane opinion.....and then you go off in your partisan bullshit.......

It is, indeed, partisan, or, more accurately, anti-partisan.

It is not, however, bullshit.

...Are you aware that for over two decades the SC has been a conservative "political organ that engages in nonstop judicial activism"????

Yep.

Trouble is, the Judicial Activism is mostly Liberal in nature; striking-down local-level law dealing with Illegal Aliens, the Homosexual Marriage abomination, etc.

Demonstrating that even having a Conservative majority on the bench is not always a guarantee of sane, decent decision-making.

But it beats a Flaming Liberal Court, hands down, and every time.

 

[JoeB131]

We want a Supreme Court that interprets law objectively and dispassionately, not a Liberal political organ that engages in nonstop Judicial Activism.

In all likelihood, the latter is what we will get if the Senate caves-in and confirms Obumble's nominee.

No thank you.

No, guy, what you want is judicial activism from the right. Heller, Citizen's United, Bush v. Gore were not examples of "dispassionate law", they were naked political power grabs that often flew in the face of decades of established law and even some fucking common sense.

Now the shoe's on the other foot, and you guys are whining that you won't be able to go to the Courts to get the rich to screw you.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep.

Trouble is, the Judicial Activism is mostly Liberal in nature; striking-down local-level law dealing with Illegal Aliens, the Homosexual Marriage abomination, etc.

As opposed to Heller, striking down local laws on guns, or Citizen's United, striking down sensible laws restricting money in politics.

 

[Kondor3]

We want a Supreme Court that interprets law objectively and dispassionately, not a Liberal political organ that engages in nonstop Judicial Activism.

In all likelihood, the latter is what we will get if the Senate caves-in and confirms Obumble's nominee.

No thank you.

No, guy, what you want is judicial activism from the right. Heller, Citizen's United, Bush v. Gore were not examples of "dispassionate law", they were naked political power grabs that often flew in the face of decades of established law and even some fucking common sense.

Now the shoe's on the other foot, and you guys are whining that you won't be able to go to the Courts to get the rich to screw you.

Incorrect. Folks want a Court that will lean in favor of State-level statute dealing with Illegals, reverse the LGBT Marriage decision, etc.

 

[Boss]

Are you aware that for over two decades the SC has been a conservative "political organ that engages in nonstop judicial activism"????

It's only within the last few decades a SCOTUS justice's politics have even been a consideration in appointment to the court. This political activism started with Robert Bork. Prior to that, justices were considered solely on the basis of how they ruled with regard to the constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

Incorrect. Folks want a Court that will lean in favor of State-level statute dealing with Illegals, reverse the LGBT Marriage decision, etc.

Except there's no evidence that people want Obergefell overturned. Quite the reverse, 38 states had ALREADY legalized gay marriage before the court FINALLY took a stand.

As for "State level" statues, you guys are the ones who whine about "sanctuary cities".

 

[JoeB131]

[

It's only within the last few decades a SCOTUS justice's politics have even been a consideration in appointment to the court. This political activism started with Robert Bork. Prior to that, justices were considered solely on the basis of how they ruled with regard to the constitution.

Um, no, they really weren't.

Republicans filibustered LBJ's attempt to elevate Abe Fortas to Chief Justice because he was too liberal.

Nixon attempted to appoint both Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell before Harry Blackmum was appointed. The Senate rejected both of them.

so, no, the Supreme court has ALWAYS had a political element.

As for Bork, Bork was rejected because he was kind of a nutcase with some pretty fucking crazy views. Even Republicans voted against him by the end of it.

 

[nat4900]

No, guy, what you want is judicial activism from the right. Heller, Citizen's United, Bush v. Gore were not examples of "dispassionate law", they were naked political power grabs that often flew in the face of decades of established law and even some fucking common sense.

Now the shoe's on the other foot, and you guys are whining that you won't be able to go to the Courts to get the rich to screw you.

Well stated......

Since our "beloved" Scalia's passing has initiated all these threads, I'd like to know how the supposed impartiality of justices fares when we look at Antonin's hunting trips with Cheney while the SC was preparing to adjudicate a case somewhat involving Cheney, and why Antonin was down in a luxury resort in TX while planning to adjudicate a case involving the owner of that resort.

 

[nat4900]

It's only within the last few decades a SCOTUS justice's politics have even been a consideration in appointment to the court. This political activism started with Robert Bork. Prior to that, justices were considered solely on the basis of how they ruled with regard to the constitution.

Agreed.....However, Bork was an extremely poor choice for justice.....One does NOT belong on the SC after openly stating that one is against voting, women, civil rights.....Bork had been promised by the GOP a seat in the SC as a quid pro quo for siding with Nixon in the early 70s.

 

[Boss]

Great... so now we're going to have a re-borking of Bork?

 

[nat4900]

Great... so now we're going to have a re-borking of Bork?

Far from it.....Bork's is a boring topic......Only mentioned him to point out that he was one of the poorest nominee choices ever made.

You cannot treat a seat on the SCOTUS like you would for an ambassadorship to Lithuania.

 

[hadit]

LOL at you ignoring Trump and Romney making huge gains with what they were given. Self made millionaires? Try billionaires.

No, I don't ignore the fact Romney and Trump used their money to fuck over working people.

In fact, I think it's actually pretty fucked up, don't you?

Romney got rich, and Joe Soptic's wife died because Romney cancelled her insurance? Why are you cheering this?

Trump gets to build a gaudy casino, and Vera Coking loses her house.

This is the kind of thing you think is great? this is the kind of America Antonin Scalia thought was okay.

Wow, you sound like you actually believe your own tripe. Both Romney and Trump employ and pay thousands of people billions of dollars and you want to complain about that. Why don't you dig a little deeper than campaign ads on Soptic's wife before you sound even more foolish than normal?

Is Romney to Blame for Cancer Death?