Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Antonin Scalia dead

1235

Comments

  • topdawgnctopdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839

    No. That's not the fucking point.

    The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.

    Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?

    Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
    He has no "Constitutional Duty" to nominate a justice without the Consent and Advice of the Senate.

    Charles Schumer understood that:

    "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

    As did 1960 Democrats (linked on the college football boreds)

    As did the Senate in 1968 with LBJ

    The advice of the Senate is to not nominate. If he chooses to, then they will not consent ... as is their "Constitutional Duty".

    I am sorry you do not agree with the Constitution, or the mid-term elections of 2014. But as a famous man once said:

    Elections have consequences.

    I am all in favor of a recess appointment, and I am all in favor of Obama making an appointment. And if he was a smart man he would nominate that Injun, not Swaye, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote.

    But there is nothing that says the Senate has to abide.

    Reference Bork.

    Jesus ... I could go on and on with precedent ...
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    topdawgnc said:

    He has no "Constitutional Duty" to nominate a justice without the Consent and Advice of the Senate.

    Charles Schumer understood that:

    "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

    As did 1960 Democrats (linked on the college football boreds)

    As did the Senate in 1968 with LBJ

    The advice of the Senate is to not nominate. If he chooses to, then they will not consent ... as is their "Constitutional Duty".

    I am sorry you do not agree with the Constitution, or the mid-term elections of 2014. But as a famous man once said:

    Elections have consequences.

    I am all in favor of a recess appointment, and I am all in favor of Obama making an appointment. And if he was a smart man he would nominate that Injun, not Swaye, who was confirmed with a 97-0 vote.

    But there is nothing that says the Senate has to abide.

    Reference Bork.

    Jesus ... I could go on and on with precedent ...
    Dot not feather.
  • topdawgnctopdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839

    Why?

    Going to war over transitions of power in the government is exactly what this country is NOT about.

    You sound like a partisan fucktard.
    I am a partisan fucktard. No running from the fact the left scares the shit out of me and I realize ONLY the judicial branch of government makes a long term difference. Bush, Obama, Clinton ... all can be undone. Justices and their rulings are much more difficult to undo.

    And I would disagree ... going to war over transitions of power is EXACTLY what this government is about and founded upon.

    Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independence.

    Or read some history on Robert Bork and Clarance Thomas.

    Or take a read at what Schumer said about Bush with no open appointment.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    edited February 2016
    ...As we all know, there has been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed.
    I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record...
  • HippopeteamusHippopeteamus Member Posts: 1,958
    edited February 2016

    No. That's not the fucking point.

    The GOP candidates are saying a lame duck president can't/shouldn't nominate anyone (because he's a democrat), when in fact it is his constitutional duty to do so.

    Do all the senators up for re-election not get a say in the confirmation process too?

    Whether Republicans like it or not, America already chose the person to make this call...TWO TIMES. Crying like a bunch of fucking losers about how unfair it is? Not a good look.
    I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.
    But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325

    I agree and disagree with you. As you said the president has the right to make a nomination and Cruz saying he shouldn't is idiotic (there is nothing he can do anyway to prevent Obama from making a nomination anyway). If that is all you are saying, then I agree.
    But the senate certainly does not have to consent to an Obama appointment, as is its constitutional right. If they feel a candidate is unqualified (and when they say that they would reject any nominee I was being somewhat generous , maybe foolishly, and thinking that they were assuming Obama would select someone they would not consent to. I assume that he Obama nominated a candidate the republicans would have nominated they would vote for him or her) then they can block the nomination. That is not going against the constitution in either spirit or letter. The American people also chose the senate and they have the duty to not consent to candidates they feel are unqualified for the supreme court.
    I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.

    I said he gets to nominate someone.
  • topdawgnctopdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839

    I never said the Senate has to approve Obama's nominee.

    I said he gets to nominate someone.
    And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    topdawgnc said:

    And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
    And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    topdawgnc said:

    And the senate gets to tell him to go get fucked.
    Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 110,096 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.
    Could hurt them with the moderates
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,567 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    And deal with the consequences of Democrats screaming that the Republicans are the party of "no" and this is the latest example.
    No.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
    Exactly my point.
  • topdawgnctopdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839

    Why would they do that if he nominates a qualified candidate?
    Same reason your boy tried to filibuster Alito.
  • topdawgnctopdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839
    dflea said:

    To be cunts.

    Which Toppy supports.

    Because he's a cunt.

    I'll be amused when whine like a little bitch because the EPA shuts down your favorite fishing areas.

    Or the Supreme Court limits your right to bear arms.

    I couldn't give two fucks about the President or who controls Congress.

    But the SCOTUS ... That shit gets real.
  • SteveInSheltonSteveInShelton Member Posts: 1,611
    Lost in this political bitching thread, is that Scalia died in some really posh resort owned by someone he "helped" a while back by refusing to hear an age discrimination suit owned by the guys' company. Anyways, if an autopsy was done I wonder how much viagra and cocaine would have been found in his system.
  • dfleadflea Member Posts: 7,274
    topdawgnc said:

    I'll be amused when whine like a little bitch because the EPA shuts down your favorite fishing areas.

    Or the Supreme Court limits your right to bear arms.

    I couldn't give two fucks about the President or who controls Congress.

    But the SCOTUS ... That shit gets real.
    The chincredible vote was for the chincredible amount of sand in your vag.

    The EPA stands no chance of keeping me from fishing. And I don't have any guns - lost them all in a tragic boating accident.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 110,096 Founders Club
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 110,096 Founders Club
Sign In or Register to comment.