Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on February 14, 2016, 09:08:41 AM
-
This asswipe actually had the nerve to say this and only an hour after the news of Scalia's death
“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,” McConnell said, at a time when other elected officials, from Sen. Bernie Sanders to future Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer, were releasing statements offering condolences to the justice’s family, which includes 26 grandchildren.
I guess he's forgotten the voters have spoken. They gave Obama a second term and he's got 11 months left
McConnell is a piece of shit.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248#ixzz40A9u45Wn
-
American "democracy"
-
Good. Now when Clinton or Sanders becomes POTUS they can appoint Obama to the Supreme Court.
-
Good. Now when Clinton or Sanders becomes POTUS they can appoint Obama to the Supreme Court.
Or ambassador to Israel.
-
Good. Now when Clinton or Sanders becomes POTUS they can appoint Obama to the Supreme Court.
That would be a massive troll on the Republicans....why didn't I think of this???...good job! 8)
-
This asswipe actually had the nerve to say this and only an hour after the news of Scalia's death
I guess he's forgotten the voters have spoken. They gave Obama a second term and he's got 11 months left
McConnell is a piece of shit.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248#ixzz40A9u45Wn
Absolutely
-
You libs can go fuck yourselves. you know damm well that everything you want and can't get is a liberal justice away. Gun rights, religious liberties and all manner of other bs lib crap is a confirmation away. So for once hats off to Mitch
-
Typical Lib thinking...lets nominate a fag to make the repubs look bad. Only works if the cons show no backbone....
Blocking a strong person of color, a woman or an historic LGBT candidate for the Supreme Court might cause conservatives more trouble than they think they’re preventing,” said Robert Raben, a Democratic consultant and lobbyist who served as a senior Justice Department official under President Clinton. “The perception of unfairness or bias at the height of a national election could seriously backfire.”
One former senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the president was likely to look to someone young enough to make a mark on the court over several decades. Obama has appointed several such jurists to U.S. appellate courts, the person noted, providing him with a relatively deep bench to from which to choose.
-
This asswipe actually had the nerve to say this and only an hour after the news of Scalia's death
I guess he's forgotten the voters have spoken. They gave Obama a second term and he's got 11 months left
McConnell is a piece of shit.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248#ixzz40A9u45Wn
So, you were bothered by McConnell's immediate political reaction, but not Harray Reid's? Lemme see, I wonder what makes one more offensive to you even though they were both out of line....
-
repubs have had the majority on the supreme court for the past 40 years.
it's been 40 years since 5 of the justices were appointed by dems.
the LONGEST nomination ever took 108 days, with 45 days being the average.
To stop obama from doing it in the next TEN MONTHS would be unprecedented.
-
They only have to never bring up the nomination...that's all McConnell has to do. Not hard.
-
I'm sorry I thought the purpose of the supreme court was to make sure laws were constitutional, since when are they appointed to do the bidding of either political party? This country is fucked beyond repair, and a word of advice to the leftist, be careful what you wish you just might get it.
-
They only have to never bring up the nomination...that's all McConnell has to do. Not hard.
heck of a precedent to start.
In 2 years, we could have a Dem senate that does the EXACT same thing - prevents ANY Prez Trump apointee from making it through.
This is another case of "Totally cool - until the OTHER party decides to do it".
-
repubs have had the majority on the supreme court for the past 40 years.
it's been 40 years since 5 of the justices were appointed by dems.
the LONGEST nomination ever took 108 days, with 45 days being the average.
To stop obama from doing it in the next TEN MONTHS would be unprecedented.
It was unheard of to vote a black man into presidency. Were you against that too, you bigot? Why are you so opposed to change and progress?
-
It was unheard of to vote a black man into presidency. Were you against that too, you bigot? Why are you so opposed to change and progress?
Are you high? Are you stoned? lol
The status quo is a conservative supreme court. "progress" here means 5 liberals on the court.
-
Are you high? Are you stoned? lol
The status quo is a conservative supreme court. "progress" here means 5 liberals on the court.
You just voiced your concern for unprecedented moves. It was unprecedented to vote a black man into presidency.
-
I can provide the length of time between electing black presidents if you would like. You gave us completely useless stats as part of your logic
-
So, you were bothered by McConnell's immediate political reaction, but not Harray Reid's? Lemme see, I wonder what makes one more offensive to you even though they were both out of line....
Hey iwantbrains, if you want to know If I have a problem with a statement by Harry Reid they you should try posting the statement and tell me why you have a problem with it so I know what the fuck you're referring to. You know, just like I did with McConnell's idiotic statement
-
Hey iwantbrains, if you want to know If I have a problem with a statement by Harry Reid they you should try posting the statement and tell me why you have a problem with it so I know what the fuck you're referring to. You know, just like I did with McConnell's idiotic statement
It's as readily available as the 1 you posted. I suspect you know how to find it. Both of them preyed on political motive on the same day a man died. I assumed that was the problem you had with mcconnell's. That was certainly the issue i took with both of their statements. I'm not going to provide the statement for you, as you've likely already seen it unless you watch news that just smears conservatives.
-
That would be a massive troll on the Republicans....why didn't I think of this???...good job! 8)
We've already seen that your brain is capable of very little in the way of thinking. That is the most likely reason you didn't think of it.
-
heck of a precedent to start.
In 2 years, we could have a Dem senate that does the EXACT same thing - prevents ANY Prez Trump apointee from making it through.
This is another case of "Totally cool - until the OTHER party decides to do it".
Any Prez Trump would also be a liberal....
-
It's as readily available as the 1 you posted. I suspect you know how to find it. Both of them preyed on political motive on the same day a man died. I assumed that was the problem you had with mcconnell's. That was certainly the issue i took with both of their statements. I'm not going to provide the statement for you, as you've likely already seen it unless you watch news that just smears conservatives.
I see, so you'd like me to guess what statement you're referring to and then guess what specifically you have a problem with about it?
dipshit
-
I see, so you'd like me to guess what statement you're referring to and then guess what specifically you have a problem with about it?
dipshit
While problem solving doesn't seem to be your strong point, im certain we can work you through this one.
We have clues:
1)Scalia died
2)harry reid made a statement FOLLOWING his death. The following part is key in narrowing down the statement we are talking about
3)the person you are arguing with insinuates the statement lacks class as did mcconnell's
I would start with a browser search such as "harry reid reacts to scaila's death, if I had not seen the stament made by reid...but you saw the 1 made by McConnell and seem to be pretty offended by it. What kind of news do you watch that covers 1 reaction withhout the other? It seems one sided if you ask me. Most of the articles I've read have given multiple political figures reactions. Many of them even gave reid's and mcconnell's in the same article.
Anyhow, I'm certain you've read it which is why I'm not giving you more direction than that. What that tells me is that you were offended by the guy that said let's hold off on the nomination, yet not offended by the guy that said let's hurry up asap.
I thought you and I shared the same problem, since the first line in the first post of this thread seems to criticize mcconnell's statement occurring an hour after scalia died. I think the timing of both of their statements lack class. They could have waited a few days to pursue their political agenda.
-
You know, I don't like hypocrisy.
All the Republicans that are now complaining, were singing a different tune in the past. Look at McConnel, circa 2005: "Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up or down vote." He went on to add "The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent." He wasn't the only one, by any means.
So what happened to the Mitch McConnel that said that the President's picks "deserve a simple up or down vote"? What happened to Mitch McConnel that wanted to change the rules of the Senate to mandate such a vote? What happens to all the other guys making similar statements?
Look, it's simple. Either you believe in the Constitution ALL THE TIME or you don't. Either you follow it when it's convienent and when it's inconvenient or you don't.
I don't like the fact that Obama gets to nominate another person to the Court - especially one to replace Scalia. I'm pretty sure I won't approve I won't approve of the person he nominates. But the fact is that he is the President and the President can nominate people to fill vacancies in the Court. It doesn't matter if he has 3 years and 364 days left on his term or 1 day on his term. He can nominate someone a microsecond before his term expires.
In fact he should nominate someone. It's his fucking job!
This nonsense about "people chiming in" is just that nonsense.
is it not his prerogative to do so?
-
Nominate all he wants...its McConnell's job to ensure that fuck never gets even close to a vote.
-
Nominate all he wants...its McConnell's job to ensure that fuck never gets even close to a vote.
You're going to be sorely upset when it's done before summer.
-
I don't have a lot of faith in Mitch but guys like Sessions who'll tell him to go fuck himself...I do. They're already tring to shitcan him so if there's the hint..I expect McConnell will be headed back to Ky
-
You know, I don't like hypocrisy.
All the Republicans that are now complaining, were singing a different tune in the past. Look at McConnel, circa 2005: "Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up or down vote." He went on to add "The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent." He wasn't the only one, by any means.
So what happened to the Mitch McConnel that said that the President's picks "deserve a simple up or down vote"? What happened to Mitch McConnel that wanted to change the rules of the Senate to mandate such a vote? What happens to all the other guys making similar statements?
Look, it's simple. Either you believe in the Constitution ALL THE TIME or you don't. Either you follow it when it's convienent and when it's inconvenient or you don't.
I don't like the fact that Obama gets to nominate another person to the Court - especially one to replace Scalia. I'm pretty sure I won't approve I won't approve of the person he nominates. But the fact is that he is the President and the President can nominate people to fill vacancies in the Court. It doesn't matter if he has 3 years and 364 days left on his term or 1 day on his term. He can nominate someone a microsecond before his term expires.
In fact he should nominate someone. It's his fucking job!
This nonsense about "people chiming in" is just that nonsense.
is it not his prerogative to do so?
This is an awesome post...and really nothing else needs to be said after this......the constitution is the constitution.....The Republicans are so anal about the constitution but they always show they will shitcan it when it suits them
-
I don't have a lot of faith in Mitch but guys like Sessions who'll tell him to go fuck himself...I do. They're already tring to shitcan him so if there's the hint..I expect McConnell will be headed back to Ky
Didn't work out that way last time.
-
This is an awesome post...and really nothing else needs to be said after this......the constitution is the constitution.....The Republicans are so anal about the constitution but they always show they will shitcan it when it suits them
Couldn't agree with you or avxo more....except you just think he means this in regards to republicans, shit for brains. He is talking about politician hypocrisy in general, including democrats. You don't seem to care about theirs so much
-
Nominate all he wants...its McConnell's job to ensure that fuck never gets even close to a vote.
because there's only 1 year left with obama in office?
Are you okay when the dem senate stops the repub president from doing anything in the last 11 months? Or the last 14 months? Or at all?
Look, I hate the idea of a liberal court - but I do like to argue the lunacy of telling obama he can have NOBODY left of Scalia for 11 months. Doesn't work that way in america. longest ever was just over 100 days. Saying you will stall everything for 330 days because "you just hate liberals" will suck for them in election time.
-
because there's only 1 year left with obama in office?
Are you okay when the dem senate stops the repub president from doing anything in the last 11 months? Or the last 14 months? Or at all?
Look, I hate the idea of a liberal court - but I do like to argue the lunacy of telling obama he can have NOBODY left of Scalia for 11 months. Doesn't work that way in america. longest ever was just over 100 days. Saying you will stall everything for 330 days because "you just hate liberals" will suck for them in election time.
Longest what is just over 100 days? If you mean longest vacancy, you may want to check again.
-
This is an awesome post...and really nothing else needs to be said after this......the constitution is the constitution.....The Republicans are so anal about the constitution but they always show they will shitcan it when it suits them
Yes because the Democrats never did anything like pass a resolution, oh wait
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/)
-
Nominate all he wants...its McConnell's job to ensure that fuck never gets even close to a vote.
And in 2005, McConnell's job was to ensure that nominees for an up-or-down vote, and it was unfair to the President and the nominee, to never vote. In fact, according to McConnell, it was unconstitutional.
But times change, don't they? And what's constitutional is equivalent to what's politically expedient and advantageous, isn't it?
And so, don't worry, because what goes around comes around. Maybe McDonnell and Co. get their way and the seat is left vacant (I'd say the chances of that are about 30%) this time around. And so, when, two years into a Cruz Presidency, there's one or two more vacancies and the Senate refuses to consider any of Cruz's nominees and you're bitching and moaning, I'll be sure to remind you to stop being a hypocritical bitch.
Yes because the Democrats never did anything like pass a resolution, oh wait
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/)
OK... and two wrongs make a right?
Nobody said the Democrats aren't hypocrites who interpret the Constitution based on what's convenient for and advantageous to them at a given moment. If the situation were reversed, I've no doubt they'd be doing the same thing. And when – notice, I said when and not if – that happens, they should be called out too.
-
the LONGEST nomination ever took 108 days
I said the nomination process, not "vacancy" since obviously, the nomination doesn't start the moment the vacancy appears.
If Obama chooses someone on, say, March 1st, and by Nov 1st (election time), Repubs are STILL blocking it - well, that'll end up costing the US Supreme Court an entire YEAR of power as the 4-4 votes stack up.
Just say it's cool - so in 2017 and 2018 and 2019, when the Senate Dems are blocking EVERYTHING the Repub president does Scotus, you say that's cool too ;)
-
And in 2005, McConnell's job was to ensure that nominees for an up-or-down vote, and it was unfair to the President and the nominee, to never vote. In fact, according to McConnell, it was unconstitutional.
But times change, don't they? And what's constitutional is equivalent to what's politically expedient and advantageous, isn't it?
And so, don't worry, because what goes around comes around. Maybe McDonnell and Co. get their way and the seat is left vacant (I'd say the chances of that are about 30%) this time around. And so, when, two years into a Cruz Presidency, there's one or two more vacancies and the Senate refuses to consider any of Cruz's nominees and you're bitching and moaning, I'll be sure to remind you to stop being a hypocritical bitch.
OK... and two wrongs make a right?
Nobody said the Democrats aren't hypocrites who interpret the Constitution based on what's convenient for and advantageous to them at a given moment. If the situation were reversed, I've no doubt they'd be doing the same thing. And when – notice, I said when and not if – that happens, they should be called out too.
The response was to Andre, and his knee jerk reaction of blame republicans, I don't like either party.........
-
And in 2005, McConnell's job was to ensure that nominees for an up-or-down vote, and it was unfair to the President and the nominee, to never vote. In fact, according to McConnell, it was unconstitutional.
But times change, don't they? And what's constitutional is equivalent to what's politically expedient and advantageous, isn't it?
And so, don't worry, because what goes around comes around. Maybe McDonnell and Co. get their way and the seat is left vacant (I'd say the chances of that are about 30%) this time around. And so, when, two years into a Cruz Presidency, there's one or two more vacancies and the Senate refuses to consider any of Cruz's nominees and you're bitching and moaning, I'll be sure to remind you to stop being a hypocritical bitch.
OK... and two wrongs make a right?
Nobody said the Democrats aren't hypocrites who interpret the Constitution based on what's convenient for and advantageous to them at a given moment. If the situation were reversed, I've no doubt they'd be doing the same thing. And when – notice, I said when and not if – that happens, they should be called out too.
Nice find and I'm sure the press will find many more examples in the days and weeks to come.
It's one thing to look at a resolution from 45 years ago and another to look at the claims of an individual person 10 years ago and then today. There is no way for McConnell to defend his statement from Saturday when compared with his statement in 2005. McConnell also didn't seem to have any issue voting for a SC nominee in the last year of Reagans administration: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285
-
Exactly what I said two days ago (and I'm no fan of Warren given that she gave us the CFPB) but she's right on this in response to McConnells idiotic statement
-
The response was to Andre, and his knee jerk reaction of blame republicans, I don't like either party.........
No kneejerk reaction at all....but right now, Obama is still prez and can still nominate a Supreme Court Judge...end of discussion...he has the power constitutionally 8)......its just more obstructionism by the Republicans which they have done since Obama has been in office.....which is why Obama has gone around them and destroyed them at every turn...HELL they are STILL working on trying to repeal Obamacare...Republican legacy is eight wasted years of doing NOTHING
.
you should be talking about why the Republicans are trying to skirt the constitution ??? ??? ???..and AGAIN trying to get away with doing NOTHING
-
No kneejerk reaction at all....but right now, Obama is still prez and can still nominate a Supreme Court Judge...end of discussion...he has the power constitutionally 8)......its just more obstructionism by the Republicans which they have done since Obama has been in office.....which is why Obama has gone around them and destroyed them at every turn...HELL they are STILL working on trying to repeal Obamacare...Republican legacy is eight wasted years of doing NOTHING
.
you should be talking about why the Republicans are trying to skirt the constitution ??? ??? ???..and AGAIN trying to get away with doing NOTHING
he has the obligation to fill the empty seat and congress has the obligation to have a vote
it's not about either party or an upcoming election. It's about fulfilling the duties of the office.
The voters gave Obama a second term and he has duties to fulfill until the last day he is in office.
McConnell might have a point if we had a new president elect but that is 9 months away
I suspect if we had a president elect Hilary and Repubs also lost the Senate that Mitch McConnell would then insist that Obama nominate someone so the Repubs could have one last chance to influence the decision and get someone they liked.
-
he has the obligation to fill the empty seat and congress has the obligation to have a vote
it's not about either party or an upcoming election. It's about fulfilling the duties of the office.
The voters gave Obama a second term and he has duties to fulfill until the last day he is in office.
McConnell might have a point if we had a new president elect but that is 9 months away
I suspect if we had a president elect Hilary and Repubs also lost the Senate that Mitch McConnell would then insist that Obama nominate someone so the Repubs could have one last chance to influence the decision and get someone they liked.
of course he would....nice point
-
No kneejerk reaction at all....but right now, Obama is still prez and can still nominate a Supreme Court Judge...end of discussion...he has the power constitutionally 8)......its just more obstructionism by the Republicans which they have done since Obama has been in office.....which is why Obama has gone around them and destroyed them at every turn...HELL they are STILL working on trying to repeal Obamacare...Republican legacy is eight wasted years of doing NOTHING
.
you should be talking about why the Republicans are trying to skirt the constitution ??? ??? ???..and AGAIN trying to get away with doing NOTHING
Why are reps or dems trying to skirt the constitution? Very simple, it impedes there ability to fuck up the country
-
Yeah its the repubs fault we want to avoid rolling back Heller and allowing shitbag's immigration policies to go forward. You fucking libs and your bullshit. Harry fucking Reid would be doing the same shit. They did it to Bush in 2007. Barry can nominate away...he can find his half gay, trans, latino, dwarf muslim convert and nominate it all he wants.
-
Let me put it this way, if the US government was actually worth a shit, we wouldn't have this problem. The nominees would be qualified and know their job is make sure that laws are constitutional. The constitution is a legal document, not some living breathing non-sense manufactured by the left. If that was the case, then why bother having a process to amend it?
-
Great post......which is why Obama can nominate away and unless they can clone Justice Scalia right now....barry will have to wait
-
Let me put it this way, if the US government was actually worth a shit, we wouldn't have this problem. The nominees would be qualified and know their job is make sure that laws are constitutional. The constitution is a legal document, not some living breathing non-sense manufactured by the left. If that was the case, then why bother having a process to amend it?
Repubs are quite happy to consider it a living document when it serves their purposes
Don't forget, corporations are people my friend and money is speech
-
Yeah its the repubs fault we want to avoid rolling back Heller and allowing shitbag's immigration policies to go forward. You fucking libs and your bullshit. Harry fucking Reid would be doing the same shit. They did it to Bush in 2007. Barry can nominate away...he can find his half gay, trans, latino, dwarf muslim convert and nominate it all he wants.
Jesus Christ... what a vitriolic meltdown. You see everything through a partisan lens, and terms of pure black and pure white.
It's a pity that people like you get a vote. People like you are - with the same blindly partisan mindset - the reason this country elects politicians like Barack Obama.
-
Well dipshit I actually have earned my right to vote serving my country so go fuck off. I vote conservative not repub nor dem. I'm sorry you have an issue with blocking a super libs' nominee and watching our 2nd amendment rights go down the shit tubes. I'm also not for the cultural suicide currently on display in Europe...again a gift we'd get with a lib justice. We railed against Obama here for months before the elections....not my fault he got elected. I hate Trump just as much.
-
I know you hate Obama but you're not a buffoon. I agree with you on the 2nd amendment of course. You know this and I firmly believe you have every right to vote for who leads this country.
I'm just afraid that as with anything, age is catching up to us all.
The young crowd doesn't care about guns or abortion or gay people.
Is it right? I don't know. What I do know is that you and I won't be here to see it all unfold and the country is left to the young ones.
It is what they want, and while I may disagree at times it is their future.
-
Well dipshit I actually have earned my right to vote serving my country so go fuck off.
Nonsense - if you had to "earn" your "right to vote" it wouldn't be a right. And you may want to reconsider your sass; it doesn't intimidate me and only makes you look like an insecure tool.
I vote conservative not repub nor dem.
Ooh. A freethinker! Why, I bet you read Barry Goldwater's book at 7 and it shaped your political philosophy and set you on a lifelong walk down the conservative values path!
I'm sorry you have an issue with blocking a super libs' nominee and watching our 2nd amendment rights go down the shit tubes.
So many logical fallacies. I would explain why this straw man argument you present here doesn't represent my position, but I'm afraid the difference – and it's not a subtle one – would be lost on you.
I'm also not for the cultural suicide currently on display in Europe...again a gift we'd get with a lib justice.
The Europeans are getting exactly what they deserve. But it's doubtful that the straw that will break the American camel's back will be the Senate confirming an Obama nominee to replace Justice Scalia.
We railed against Obama here for months before the elections....not my fault he got elected. I hate Trump just as much.
Well... that makes it all alright then.
-
Well dipshit I actually have earned my right to vote serving my country so go fuck off. I vote conservative not repub nor dem. I'm sorry you have an issue with blocking a super libs' nominee and watching our 2nd amendment rights go down the shit tubes. I'm also not for the cultural suicide currently on display in Europe...again a gift we'd get with a lib justice. We railed against Obama here for months before the elections....not my fault he got elected. I hate Trump just as much.
This just in. Obama is coming for your guns on November 8, 2016. Under no circumstance should you leave your house that day.
-
Repubs are quite happy to consider it a living document when it serves their purposes
Don't forget, corporations are people my friend and money is speech
You guys just can't get past the Dem Rep, thing. Notice I sad the government as in all of them. The country doesn't get this fucked up by one party, they would be voted out and have no power. For cripe sake the RNC and DNC have monopolized the whole election process, it's a joke, we get presented with a pile of crap and vote for the best looking turd.
-
Yeah its the repubs fault we want to avoid rolling back Heller and allowing shitbag's immigration policies to go forward. You fucking libs and your bullshit. Harry fucking Reid would be doing the same shit. They did it to Bush in 2007. Barry can nominate away...he can find his half gay, trans, latino, dwarf muslim convert and nominate it all he wants.
Dude...everything out of your mouth is lib this and lib that..just answer the question...does Obama have the right to nominate who he wants for the supreme court at this point in time.....yes or no.....don't talk about anything else...YES OR NO
-
I know you hate Obama but you're not a buffoon. I agree with you on the 2nd amendment of course. You know this and I firmly believe you have every right to vote for who leads this country.
I'm just afraid that as with anything, age is catching up to us all.
The young crowd doesn't care about guns or abortion or gay people.
Is it right? I don't know. What I do know is that you and I won't be here to see it all unfold and the country is left to the young ones.
It is what they want, and while I may disagree at times it is their future.
I think we would...things are speeding up all the time. Look at everything over Obama's tenure.
-
Dude...everything out of your mouth is lib this and lib that..just answer the question...does Obama have the right to nominate who he wants for the supreme court at this point in time.....yes or no.....don't talk about anything else...YES OR NO
Yeah...cause libs are kinda the enemy as far as I'm concerned...just as whitey and race seem to be yours. I have posted more then once he can nominate whoever he wants to...I see public school failed you.
-
Funny Obama didn't think the voters had spoke when he was for filibustering
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/11/jon-kyl/obama-criticized-supreme-court-filibuster-alito-ev/
-
Any idea if this is true? Just read it. It would seem hypocritical if so.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/
For the record, I think Obama should get to nominate whomever he chooses.
-
Yeah...cause libs are kinda the enemy as far as I'm concerned...just as whitey and race seem to be yours. I have posted more then once he can nominate whoever he wants to...I see public school failed you.
There you go bringing up race again...I love it....race is in your mind
-
There you go bringing up race again...I love it....race is in your mind
It's hard not to bring up race, when addressing a racist. Shall we tally up his cries of racism versus yours?
You don't get to whine about people bringing up race, given you've been doing it here on getbig for the 10+ years you like to brag about all so often. Besides, you and many other blacks often call white people racist, with no merit for the accusation. Calling you a racist happens to be fitting because it is true. So, do you just dislike people calling out racist in its true context, or do you just think the ability to accuse someone of being racist is reserved for blacks?
-
Amazing....I love how people who have been here for a week with the majority of their posts on the sex board are calling out my 10+ years here on Getbig...just.....wow
-
Good. Now when Clinton or Sanders becomes POTUS they can appoint Obama to the Supreme Court.
Another brilliant post. So let me this this straight. Pretty sure the dude never tried a case in court and you want him appointed to the supreme court? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha!
-
Another brilliant post. So let me this this straight. Pretty sure the dude never tried a case in court and you want him appointed to the supreme court? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha!
41 out of 109 past supreme courts past members had zero judicial experience.
Did you know that?
-
Amazing....I love how people who have been here for a week with the majority of their posts on the sex board are calling out my 10+ years here on Getbig...just.....wow
You often boast about your 10 years of racism here, so I figure they are fair game. And I don't have 1 single post on the sex board, but you know that, and hope it detracts from the substance of my posts, each and everytime I make you look stupid. Furthermore, I don't know what your problem seems to be on the sex board, as you worship every cock on it.
On another note, you thought the republicans actions were just appalling here. Seeing that you've been following politics, since most of the guys on getbig were in diapers (your words, not mine), and not just since a black man took office, why didn't you show such outrage over democrats trying to halt supreme court nomination? Afterall, you've been just as passionate about politics well before obama took office, so you were bound to know democrats have done the exact same thing that stimulated enough disgust for you all to make/respond in this very thread
-
41 out of 109 past supreme courts past members had zero judicial experience.
Did you know that?
How many were traitors and murderers?
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
-
How many were traitors and murderers?
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
Oh brother.
This is the Obama is a traitor part of your insanity now.
Please specify what he did that was "treacherous".
-
Another brilliant post. So let me this this straight. Pretty sure the dude never tried a case in court and you want him appointed to the supreme court? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha!
I think Obama would not make for a good Justice from the standpoint of being too ideological - certainly his political ideology and philosophy are in sharp contrast to mine, but I don't think that, in itself, disqualifies someone.
With that said, there's no requirement that only Judges be nominated to the Supreme Court. In fact, there's no requirement for them to even have a law degree (although it's probably a good idea if they do).
Personally, I think the Court could benefit greatly from more diversity of experience instead of more of the same - lawyers who went to one of three law schools, had a Federal clerkship, and then joined a powerhouse firm or the USA office. There are Senators who would be well-qualified, and I can think of at least one Governor. Taft became a Justice some time after his term as President was finished. Such candidates would help offer differing perspectives to a group of nine people that are cloistered in a secretive tower made of the finest ivory.
-
I think Obama would not make for a good Justice from the standpoint of being too ideological - certainly his political ideology and philosophy are in sharp contrast to mine, but I don't think that, in itself, disqualifies someone.
With that said, there's no requirement that only Judges be nominated to the Supreme Court. In fact, there's no requirement for them to even have a law degree (although it's probably a good idea if they do).
Personally, I think the Court could benefit greatly from more diversity of experience instead of more of the same - lawyers who went to one of three law schools, had a Federal clerkship, and then joined a powerhouse firm or the USA office. There are Senators who would be well-qualified, and I can think of at least one Governor. Taft became a Justice some time after his term as President was finished. Such candidates would help offer differing perspectives to a group of nine people that are cloistered in a secretive tower made of the finest ivory.
I agree with this.
Also, Obama would never want to be a Supreme Court justice. I doubt he wants to put in the work required to do that kind of job, give up all the money he will make with his books and speaking fees, etc.
-
I agree with this.
Also, Obama would never want to be a Supreme Court justice. I doubt he wants to put in the work required to do that kind of job, give up all the money he will make with his books and speaking fees, etc.
Isn't it funny? The Presidency has become, for all intents and purposes, an internship. Once you're done being the President, you get to sell hot air and make a ton of money.
-
Isn't it funny? The Presidency has become, for all intents and purposes, an internship. Once you're done being the President, you get to sell hot air and make a ton of money.
It's a shame. Many of these public service jobs are the ultimate cash cow. What the Clintons made is just obscene.
-
It's a shame. Many of these public service jobs are the ultimate cash cow. What the Clintons made is just obscene.
I miss 333386 telling us that obama will be broke, homeless, and smoking crack in the streets, just 6 months after losing the 2012 election :(
-
I miss 333386 telling us that obama will be broke, homeless, and smoking crack in the streets, just 6 months after losing the 2012 election :(
Those were good times. I know he won't return, but I do hope he's doing well.
-
I think Obama would not make for a good Justice from the standpoint of being too ideological - certainly his political ideology and philosophy are in sharp contrast to mine, but I don't think that, in itself, disqualifies someone.
With that said, there's no requirement that only Judges be nominated to the Supreme Court. In fact, there's no requirement for them to even have a law degree (although it's probably a good idea if they do).
Personally, I think the Court could benefit greatly from more diversity of experience instead of more of the same - lawyers who went to one of three law schools, had a Federal clerkship, and then joined a powerhouse firm or the USA office. There are Senators who would be well-qualified, and I can think of at least one Governor. Taft became a Justice some time after his term as President was finished. Such candidates would help offer differing perspectives to a group of nine people that are cloistered in a secretive tower made of the finest ivory.
Just curious, given the Scalia was very ideological (I assume most even on the right wouldn't argue with that) do you consider him to have been a good justice
-
Just curious, given the Scalia was very ideological (I assume most even on the right wouldn't argue with that) do you consider him to have been a good justice
He was a good justice but like most conservatives he was on the wrong side of history....no matter his right wing views he could not stop Obamacare, legalization of Marijuana, or gay marriage
Liberalism marches on
-
Just curious, given the Scalia was very ideological (I assume most even on the right wouldn't argue with that) do you consider him to have been a good justice
Yes I think Scalia was a good Justice, although there are decisions where I disagreed with his opinion.
The difference between Obama and Scalia, in my opinion, is that Scalia saw the Court at an institution that interprets the Constitution as written and not as the means to implement social change. It seems to me that Obama sees it quite differently. I just don't think that the Court, as an institution, isn't supposed to treat the Constitution like tea leaves, or to function like a conclave of 9 legal high-priests that tries to direct the nation.
Of course, it's possible that I am wrong; it's possible that Obama would make an OK justice - maybe even a great Justice. The freedom that a lifetime appointment brings, together with the rarefied air in the Court means that the Justices can be isolated from the politicking in Washington which is a great thing. Maybe Obama is better suited for such an environment. Maybe he's a much better legal scholar than a President.
But - and this is my personal opinion - I'd rather not find out.
-
If it were to take a year or more for the next justice to be confirmed, Chris Christie could be an interesting option.
-
If it were to take a year or more for the next justice to be confirmed, Chris Christie could be an interesting option.
Christie is a lifelong liberal who "evolved" on every issue when the tea party took power.
Ted Cruz would be a better option, to be honest. Hundreds of actual conservatives would be better. I'd use Christie as Attorney General for a republican president... he will HAVE to follow orders or be fired. But he's liberal on a lot of things, don't give him SCOTUS power.
-
Another brilliant post. So let me this this straight. Pretty sure the dude never tried a case in court and you want him appointed to the supreme court? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha!
Yes of course. It would be the ultimate Fuck You move for mental midgets like yourself.
Possessing a level of stupidity where sarcasm isn't detected must be painful. Good thing painkillers is covered by Obamacare.
-
there's actually no legal requirements to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
-
there's actually no legal requirements to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Let's not intrude upon delusions with simple facts ok?
-
Let's not intrude upon delusions with simple facts ok?
Harriet Myers approved
-
If it were to take a year or more for the next justice to be confirmed, Chris Christie could be an interesting option.
Why? He was a sub-par USA and, at best, an average Governor. What, exactly, makes his an interesting option, other than the fact that he maybe counts for two Justices if you use mass as the metric.
-
The combination of time in law and in government would make him interesting to me.
-
Why? He was a sub-par USA and, at best, an average Governor. What, exactly, makes his an interesting option, other than the fact that he maybe counts for two Justices if you use mass as the metric.
Moody has cut NJ's credit rating 9 times since Christie has been in office and his approval rating among residents hit a record low in December of last year.
Also, he's a lifetime pathological liar (not sure if that matters to Republicans or not)