Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I'm not saying anything other than the gig is rigged for Hillary and the Democratic party doesn't give a crap what you think about it. It's like we elected a child to the WH. Yes, in 2004 Remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination Its just imponderable to think how much better the Democrat elected in 2008 is better than the clown that preceded him. Obama is a really good president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I'm not saying anything yep you got nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 President Obama posts at SCOTUSblog... to say that appointing a Supreme Court Justice is a "responsibility" he takes "seriously." He's going to "devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation" to the selection process, you won't be surprised to hear. And he's going to pick someone who is "eminently qualified" and has "an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity." But there's a bit more, and this tinges into the controversial. In some cases, "a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment." So he's looking for someone who doesn't see law as "abstract legal theory abstract legal theory" or "some footnote in a dusty casebook" or only "an intellectual exercise." There should be "life experience" and an understanding that law "affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times" which is "an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes." This is called 'legislation.' We have elected people who do that. They are called 'legislators.' My God how did Obama ever get through three years of Harvard Law? Is there any actual evidence that his intellectual ability increased between Occidental and HL? In other words, Like Sotomayer and Kagen, he was someone who will rule by feelings rather than the constitution. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Isn't Senate advising POTUS not to nominate at this point? They can advise him to each Cocoa Puffs for breakfast but the Constitution does not give them authority to advise the president on nomination. Nomination rests solely with the president. The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... Judges of the supreme Court whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law The "and" is critical there. The President nominates and the Senate advises and consents on the nomination in a diminished role to that of the President. Obama will nominate Sri or some other nominatable person and and the Senate Republicans will lose credibility while they don't do their jobs. The Republicans would have been smarter to put up a fight against each nominee rather than this petulant "take the ball and go home" approach to government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 President Obama posts at SCOTUSblog... to say that appointing a Supreme Court Justice is a "responsibility" he takes "seriously." He's going to "devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation" to the selection process, you won't be surprised to hear. And he's going to pick someone who is "eminently qualified" and has "an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity." But there's a bit more, and this tinges into the controversial. In some cases, "a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment." So he's looking for someone who doesn't see law as "abstract legal theory abstract legal theory" or "some footnote in a dusty casebook" or only "an intellectual exercise." There should be "life experience" and an understanding that law "affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times" which is "an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes." This is called 'legislation.' We have elected people who do that. They are called 'legislators.' My God how did Obama ever get through three years of Harvard Law? Is there any actual evidence that his intellectual ability increased between Occidental and HL? In other words, Like Sotomayer and Kagen, he was someone who will rule by feelings rather than the constitution. . Anyone want to guess what theory this derives from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 yep you got nothing Ya, LA is pretty shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 President Obama posts at SCOTUSblog... to say that appointing a Supreme Court Justice is a "responsibility" he takes "seriously." He's going to "devote considerable time, deep reflection, careful deliberation" to the selection process, you won't be surprised to hear. And he's going to pick someone who is "eminently qualified" and has "an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity." But there's a bit more, and this tinges into the controversial. In some cases, "a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment." So he's looking for someone who doesn't see law as "abstract legal theory abstract legal theory" or "some footnote in a dusty casebook" or only "an intellectual exercise." There should be "life experience" and an understanding that law "affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times" which is "an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes." This is called 'legislation.' We have elected people who do that. They are called 'legislators.' My God how did Obama ever get through three years of Harvard Law? Is there any actual evidence that his intellectual ability increased between Occidental and HL? In other words, Like Sotomayer and Kagen, he was someone who will rule by feelings rather than the constitution. Over the years, the Supreme Court has often interpreted the Constitution as a living document whose words are subject to different interpretations based on the times. What can be done in the name of search and seizure is a lot more forgiving today than it was at the nation's founding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Anyone want to guess what theory this derives from? Quantitative theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 They can advise him to each Cocoa Puffs for breakfast but the Constitution does not give them authority to advise the president on nomination. Nomination rests solely with the president. The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... Judges of the supreme Court whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law The "and" is critical there. The President nominates and the Senate advises and consents on the nomination in a diminished role to that of the President. Obama will nominate Sri or some other nominatable person and and the Senate Republicans will lose credibility while they don't do their jobs. The Republicans would have been smarter to put up a fight against each nominee rather than this petulant "take the ball and go home" approach to government. Note the missing time frame from the advise & consent. There's nothing that prevents the Senate from taking two years to decide on the consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Note the missing time frame from the advise & consent. There's nothing that prevents the Senate from taking two years to decide on the consent. And the lack of specification as to mechanism. There's nothing that prevents the Senate from dissenting by refusing to let the nomination out of committee. They're called "checks and balances," Observer. Neither branch is beholden to do what the other wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 And the lack of specification as to mechanism. There's nothing that prevents the Senate from dissenting by refusing to let the nomination out of committee. They're called "checks and balances," Observer. Neither branch is beholden to do what the other wants. No, this violates the spirit of the constitution. The foundingbfathers spoke at length about the harm of factionalism and political parties and the constitution was designed to stop that, not to further it. The GOP wants a republican judge. They are using an extremely loose interpretation to further the interests of their wicked faction. Note the missing time frame from the advise & consent. There's nothing that prevents the Senate from taking two years to decide on the consent.Party politics, factionalism. Never again ever try and say you are not an extreme mindless partisan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) yep you got nothing What the hell are you talking about, you mental munchkin? Pay attention. Sister Mary Ladypants has this wrapped up. The only thing that will stop her is her. If she avoids the indictment, it won't matter what Bernie does. That you somehow are trying to goad me into making a 100% stone-cold lock of the week pick on this only makes you look as stupid as your alter ego. Edited February 24, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 And the lack of specification as to mechanism. There's nothing that prevents the Senate from dissenting by refusing to let the nomination out of committee. They're called "checks and balances," Observer. Neither branch is beholden to do what the other wants. Checks and balances don't relieve the government of the duty to fulfill its Constitutional obligations. The check is that the Senate must consent on the President's nominees. The obligation of nomination sits with the President and the obligation to advise and consent is on the Senate. The Constitution places an obligation on both the President and the Senate to work together to fill Supreme Court vacancies. There is no veto or majority or supermajority check/balance here. The President and Senate have a job to do. One of them can't just say, "I'm not doing it." The Republicans can play a procedural game of "we will not even hold a hearing" but it demonstrates a childishness that goes too far even for the Senate. Watching them do this will fire their base but alienate independents who would prefer to see a government where people work together to problem-solve. It's a stupid move politically. And it's a horrid move for people who would like to see a functioning government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 yep you got nothing As far as I know Hillary is supposed to be neck and neck with Bernie. Yet she has this many delegates? 451 Super delegates? lol http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) What the hell are you talking about, you mental munchkin? Pay attention. Sister Mary Ladypants has this wrapped up. The only thing that will stop her is her. If she avoids the indictment, it won't matter what Bernie does. That you somehow are trying to goad me into making a 100% stone-cold lock of the week pick on this only makes you look as stupid as your alter ego. well then give me odds put some skin in the game If you think Sanders has zero chance then this is a good bet for you - if Sanders doesn't become the Democrat presidential candidate I'll refrain from posting on PPP for a month if he does become the Democrat presidential candidate you refrain from posting on PPP for a year. Edited February 24, 2016 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Checks and balances don't relieve the government of the duty to fulfill its Constitutional obligations. The check is that the Senate must consent on the President's nominees. The obligation of nomination sits with the President and the obligation to advise and consent is on the Senate. The Constitution places an obligation on both the President and the Senate to work together to fill Supreme Court vacancies. There is no veto or majority or supermajority check/balance here. The President and Senate have a job to do. One of them can't just say, "I'm not doing it." The Republicans can play a procedural game of "we will not even hold a hearing" but it demonstrates a childishness that goes too far even for the Senate. Watching them do this will fire their base but alienate independents who would prefer to see a government where people work together to problem-solve. It's a stupid move politically. And it's a horrid move for people who would like to see a functioning government. 1) Consent, or NOT consent. 2) Refusing to bring it too the floor is a lack of consent. Yes, it's childish partisan bull ****, particularly when you play clips of Reid and Biden saying the same thing and scream "They started it!" And yes, it's damaging. But claiming there's a constitutional requirement that there be a floor vote is equivalent to saying parliamentary procedure is unconstitutional, as blocking bills in committee prevents Congress from doing its job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 well then give me odds put some skin in the game If you think Sanders has zero chance then this is a good bet for you - if Sanders doesn't become the Democrat presidential candidate I'll refrain from posting on PPP for a month if he does become the Democrat presidential candidate you refrain from posting on PPP for a year. Why would I take a bet that results in you not posting here when all you have to do is log in as gatorman? Especially since the only one who is pushing for this is you. It's like being in grade school again. One more time. The DNC is rigged to put their candidate in the race. If the GOP did this, no one would be worried about Trump. Just like no one is worried about Sanders. All you have to do is look at NH and understand this very simple truth. Bernie wins. Hillary gets the delegates. "Fair share," I guess. The DNC can and does do this because you and your ilk are sheep, are unable to think for yourselves, and will GLADLY take Hillary no matter how much you really want a socialist. Why? Because anyone who so firmly believes the government knows what's best for everyone surely also believes their party leaders knows what's best for party members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Why would I take a bet that results in you not posting here when all you have to do is log in as gatorman? Especially since the only one who is pushing for this is you. It's like being in grade school again. One more time. The DNC is rigged to put their candidate in the race. If the GOP did this, no one would be worried about Trump. Just like no one is worried about Sanders. All you have to do is look at NH and understand this very simple truth. Bernie wins. Hillary gets the delegates. "Fair share," I guess. The DNC can and does do this because you and your ilk are sheep, are unable to think for yourselves, and will GLADLY take Hillary no matter how much you really want a socialist. Why? Because anyone who so firmly believes the government knows what's best for everyone surely also believes their party leaders knows what's best for party members. LA confirms, just what I thought about him, all mouth no balls or brains . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 LA confirms, just what I thought about him, all mouth no balls or brains . You can take all the names of all the people who care what you think about me, write them on a piece of paper, crumble it up and comfortably shove it up the ass of a gnat. The simple fact remains; unless indicted, you get Hillary. And you'll take it. And you'll campaign. And you'll knock on doors. And you'll vote. All of it with a great, bit dumb-as-rocks smile on your face. Why? Because you're a good litle SoProg sheep, happy to let someone else do all your thinking for you. On this basic fact I would bet the farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 The Senate doesn't have to do anything. You'll just have to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts