quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

@Knightimequiet

quote:

What needs to occur is another more liberal justice like Ginsburg to tell the President that it was wrong to make this a political issue while her friend's body is not even cold yet. That is why I will retire the very day the next President takes office because the Supreme Court is meant not to be a political tool but a place where the rule of law and our Constitution takes priority and not your legacy. That would be a fitting result and tribute to Scalia.

Actually, it was the Senate majority (Republican) leader who spoke out before Obama and announced the Senate would block any nomination. You are totally wrong about who made this a political issue.

Secondly, the Supreme Court made itself a political tool in 2000 Gore v Bush when they overturned the ruling of the Florida court.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC
Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know you needed a link to point out what everyone in America has been going through for the past 7 years. If you need something from the internet, and we all know everything on the Internet is true, then you obviously have not been paying attention. America -- 19 trillion dollars in debt. America -- 94 million Americans out of work. America -- millions of illegal aliens flooding the country. America -- Syrian Muslim refugees allowed in while Syrian Christians are kept out. I can go on and on and on.

Where did the majority of that $19 trillion dollar debt originate? ...

quote:



Yes, the debt is high....

quote:


Maybe you should get your facts updated.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knightimequiet

This is pointless. Debate involves an exchange and evolution of ideas. You are spouting talking points from individuals that would rather see America destroyed than it be the preeminent power in the world. I thought this would be a fun exercise but honestly the lack of education and understanding is astounding. There is no respect or common decency here just angry individuals with zero to offer other than demanding others agree with their point of view or dismiss them as idiots. That is not effective in the slightest. I am done with this portion of the website. It is truly sad to see that so many individuals have no conception of their own government, its rules, precedent, and its history because they refuse to read all view points not just the one they subscribe to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

You've been wrong about everything you post on here old man dipshit, don't take it too personally.

quote:

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Article II of the Constitution declares that the president SHALL appoint a new Justice. Obama briefly remarked in his Scalia speech that the president must fulfill his constitutional duty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knightimequiet

Thanks for making my point. You can only see right and left and that is the problem. We ARE ALL Americans. There should be no parties only issue based politics. Read up on George Washington.

Except that there are parties and for one of them and for 40 years, it's been all about party, with too much of it's subsequent success built on division and derision. And except when it comes to describing Obama's action as 'an unabashed social engineer that has done more to destroy the separation of powers' when he has fewer EO's than most for one example and those he has, have plenty of precedent.

In fact in his inaugural address I think or first SOU address, Obama said there is no Red America and no Blue America...we are all Americans, just like you. If only that were true.

Washington was in a very unique position being the first and had an equally unique perspective not being a, and few of his contemporaries even grasping the concept of, anyone being called...a 'career' politician.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Article II of the Constitution declares that the president SHALL appoint a new Justice. Obama briefly remarked in his Scalia speech that the president must fulfill his constitutional duty.

All of a sudden, this president cares about the Constitution? That's fuckin' funny!



Michael

quote:

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is threatening to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee made by President Obama to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“This should be a decision for the people,” Cruz said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on Sunday. “Let the election decide. If the Democrats want to replace [Scalia], they need to win the election. But I don’t think the American people want a court that will strip our religious liberties. I don’t think the American people want a court that will mandate unlimited abortions on demand, partial-birth abortion with taxpayer funding and no parental notification, and I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.”

On Saturday, Obama said he plans “to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time,” pressing the Senate to “fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

Asked whether he would filibuster Obama’s choice, Cruz said: “Absolutely.”

“The Senate’s duty is to advise and consent,” Cruz said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday. “We’re advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court.”

quote:

"Ted Cruz Says He Will ‘Absolutely’ Filibuster Obama’s Nominee To Replace Scalia…"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

If Obama was smart (which is questionable) he'd nominate Sri Srinivasan. But my guess is Sri isn't progressive enough for this President.

I found this from 2013 about Sri.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/23/sri-srinivasan-judge-supreme-court-circuit-dc-obama-bush/2351543/
updated yesterday by all accounts.

This story was first published on May 23, 2013. Srikanth Srinivasan is seen as a possible nominee by President Obama to the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — The issue before the Supreme Court was the Defense of Marriage Act, and the smooth-talking native of India representing the United States of America at the podium had a tough argument to make.

Why, Chief Justice John Roberts wanted to know, was the government not only refusing to defend the law, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, but arguing the other side — all while continuing to enforce it?

From his post feet away from the nine justices March 27, Srikanth Srinivasan (SREE-kont SREE-nee-vah-sun) calmly explained what Roberts called a "totally unprecedented" situation. Along the way, the mathematics professor's son sprinkled in references to numerators, denominators and algorithms, the statutes 28 U.S.C. 530(d) and 28 U.S.C. 1254, and the precedents established by INS v.Chadha, United States v. Lovett and Turner Broadcasting v. FCC.

Without notes.


I think Obama may have more smarts...than you thought...
interesting watch list tho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knightimequiet

This is why this country is on the path to Civil War. You have zero to back up your claim. The Majority Leader was compelled to make such a statement due to the debate that was hours away. This was exactly what should be done to protect the candidates as I would expect from either party. Obama is a unabashed social engineer that has done more to destroy the separation of powers that is written in our Constitution that many other Presidents. Period. The Congress has been complicit in many of his acts as well. The goes back over and over right back to FDR no matter what party the President is in.The point is the current administration only cares for itself and not the people. Otherwise polling data would be followed religiously. It never is at all. The polarization of the public leads us to taking up arms against each other. Concensus must rule the data as intended but we don't care for that. Only feeling our side is winning. Your attitude lays bare the fact you only care for your views and those that agree with you. That is not American and indicates your own self loathing and regret. The Constitution is a contract made by past generations for future ones to set down a way to address common issues. Your continued name calling is baseless and in point of fact would preclude you from the decision making structure within our government. That is why currently there are no fit candidates running for president or holding the office. Concensus is a non starter for these people. This makes for individuals like yourself and others that feel it is your duty to say hateful and hurtful words to get your say. While I protect and believe it's your right I know it is nothing more than a set mind set based upon experience not shared by all. Anger based upon that experience. Unwillingness to forgive and grow and make sure life is better for the next generation by setting the right example, along with a lack of civics education. Of course you will not agree with my assessment but when you think to yourself about the anger and hate in this world are you good with adding to it? Does that advance your point of view? No. Anger and hate breeds only more. It is a wonderful thing to spout vitriol on the Internet but you will have to live with the consequences. Something tells me that you cannot or would not because you were hurt and for that I am sorry and full of pity.

quote:

1. Yes, he should nominate someone.
2. I'd prefer someone who isn't an ideologue.
3. Bill Clinton?!? Seriously?
4. Michelle Obama?!? That's even more ridiculous than nominating Bill Clinton! Remember, this was the woman who wasn't proud of her country until her husband was elected President. I can't even imagine how incredibly discriminatory she'd act.

quote:

It is entertaining to see the party of "strict construction" inventing a new constitutional doctrine from whole cloth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So...lets raise taxes...pay our debt... instead of the Republican way... trickle down rob from the middle class bullshit... that has been proven over and over not to work. I am all for reevaluating our financial commitments and then living within our means... but the only damn way to payoff the debt is with REAL money...and the only way to get REAL money is through taxes.

When our debt is paid off I would support legislation requiring a balanced budget except in time of war.

Butch