Jump to content

Obama To Name Court Pick Today


Recommended Posts

So, essentially, McConnell is crying foul, saying that Obama is politicizing the Supreme Court nomination, and it isn't right, because Republicans said they were going to politicize this situation first...

 

Not quite. Really, you can peel that onion of blame back decades, if you want. Newt Gingrich is the first politician I know of that made it policy to marginalize and refuse to work with the opposition (Clinton.) Everything since then has been escalating "tit-for-tat" bull ****.

 

Adults would have stopped this quite some time ago. But blaming McConnell or Obama exclusively is ignoring 20 years of systemic non-cooperation escalating to Constitutional abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Not quite. Really, you can peel that onion of blame back decades, if you want. Newt Gingrich is the first politician I know of that made it policy to marginalize and refuse to work with the opposition (Clinton.) Everything since then has been escalating "tit-for-tat" bull ****.

 

Adults would have stopped this quite some time ago. But blaming McConnell or Obama exclusively is ignoring 20 years of systemic non-cooperation escalating to Constitutional abuse.

 

Other than that she was spot-on!

 

In a gatorman/...lybob kinda way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You and I can dislike the compromise but in a two party system, it's the reality of getting things done. I'm a Libertarian to the core but if I walk through life like an Ayn Randian zombie, I'm the a-whole at the party who won't shut up about Rush. No friends. No sex. But lovin' Tom Sawyer because my mind is not for rent.

A Libertarian believes in protecting INDIVIDUALS. There's a reason that they hold the Bill of Rights up as untouchable, and that's because the BoR was written to be a bold line that wasn't to be crossed. You're clearly no Libertarian if you're so quick to erase that line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Libertarian believes in protecting INDIVIDUALS. There's a reason that they hold the Bill of Rights up as untouchable, and that's because the BoR was written to be a bold line that wasn't to be crossed. You're clearly no Libertarian if you're so quick to erase that line.

 

Oh, he's a Libertarian.

 

In the same way Trump's a conservative.

 

In the same way Rosie O'Donnell is a dietitian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

His point, which you insist on missing, is that things have already BEEN DONE in the name of compromise.

 

They are clearly not to your liking, but that's too bad. Compromise with yourself. My side is done compromising with people who insist they always need more.

They are the proverbial mouse given a cookie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

His point, which you insist on missing, is that things have already BEEN DONE in the name of compromise.

 

They are clearly not to your liking, but that's too bad. Compromise with yourself. My side is done compromising with people who insist they always need more.

Do you think the left feels the same way?

 

Oh, he's a Libertarian.

 

In the same way Trump's a conservative.

 

In the same way Rosie O'Donnell is a dietitian.

Libertarians have the right idea on ideals and the wrong idea on practical implementation. That's a lot of why they are marginalized. You can't turn off welfare in 2 weeks, legalize all drugs tomorrow, defund roads in favor of tolls, stop all school funding, etc...Libertarians need a plan, a reasonable one, to take back liberty. But instead most insist on a pie in the sky Galts Gulch utopia immediately in a country too far down the GOP/Dem socialist path.

 

So we are left with the political reality of compromise as intended in a two party system. And at the moment there's a debate going on between the big government GOP and big government Dems, while Libertarians go to conventions as a marginalized minority.

Edited by Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People must realize that the Trump phenomenon has been caused by the Left's "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" approach. They are pretty much akin to the radical Muslims who have a goal of complete domination of the world. There is not an accommodation that they won't make if it even slightly furthers their cause. The next day they'll begin to ask for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite. Really, you can peel that onion of blame back decades, if you want. Newt Gingrich is the first politician I know of that made it policy to marginalize and refuse to work with the opposition (Clinton.) Everything since then has been escalating "tit-for-tat" bull ****.

 

Adults would have stopped this quite some time ago. But blaming McConnell or Obama exclusively is ignoring 20 years of systemic non-cooperation escalating to Constitutional abuse.

I would argue it's been tit for tat since Watergate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People must realize that the Trump phenomenon has been caused by the Left's "give me an inch and I'll take a mile" approach. They are pretty much akin to the radical Muslims who have a goal of complete domination of the world. There is not an accommodation that they won't make if it even slightly furthers their cause. The next day they'll begin to ask for more.

 

60+% disapprove of Trump an 50+% disapprove of Clinton...and still each side blames the other for its own demons.

 

The passing of the buck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Senate Should Do Its Job

by Kevin D Williamson

 

 

As a purely political question, I do not see how the president, or Mrs. Clinton, gets around the simple facts of the case.

 

If it is morally permissible for President Obama to employ a maximalist interpretation of his powers in an explicit attempt to act legislatively in place of Congress — for instance, by attempting to impose through executive order an amnesty for illegal immigrants that Congress has rejected — then it is equally permissible for Congress to employ a maximalist interpretation of its own powers and stymie the executive branch.

 

Obama may have technically been within his powers all this time (though I very much doubt that even that is true) but he unquestionably has done violence with malice aforethought to the constitutional order, attempting to arrogate to himself legislative powers. It bears repeating that he has been absolutely explicit about this, his argument (“argument”) being that if Congress will not act as he wishes it to, he will act in its place.

 

 

The predictable, and predictably stupid, rhetorical line from the Democrats now goes: “The Senate should do its job (and give the president whatever he wants).”

 

In truth, the Senate is doing its job by stopping him. The Senate exists to provide a check on the democratic passions of the House and on the imperial pretensions of the presidency. Mitch McConnell is absolutely right to make use of the procedural powers granted him to check the White House in this matter.

 

He should have begun doing it years ago, in fact.

 

But give the president credit for his gracious timing: He could have acted yesterday, forcing the Senate to take a stand against the would-be imperator on the Ides of March, which might have been uncomfortable.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

The problem is ...people believe this warped vision....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not quite. Really, you can peel that onion of blame back decades, if you want. Newt Gingrich is the first politician I know of that made it policy to marginalize and refuse to work with the opposition (Clinton.) Everything since then has been escalating "tit-for-tat" bull ****.

 

Adults would have stopped this quite some time ago. But blaming McConnell or Obama exclusively is ignoring 20 years of systemic non-cooperation escalating to Constitutional abuse.

I would argue it goes back to the civil rights movement and blacks finally being allowed to vote in the South. Nixon employed his southern strategy to divide the electorate away from the New Deal coalition. The Dems absorbed the new black voters and the parties have not been the same since. But, that not being enough for Nixon he climb on his high horse of "Real Americanism" and along with John Mitchell and other thugs began to turn the White House into a criminal organization. Democrats held him accountable and Republicans have been angry ever since.

 

 

Of course, this all connects back even farther to Alger Hiss and Nixon, but that's another story.

I would argue it's been tit for tat since Watergate.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the left feels the same way?

Libertarians have the right idea on ideals and the wrong idea on practical implementation. That's a lot of why they are marginalized. You can't turn off welfare in 2 weeks, legalize all drugs tomorrow, defund roads in favor of tolls, stop all school funding, etc...Libertarians need a plan, a reasonable one, to take back liberty. But instead most insist on a pie in the sky Galts Gulch utopia immediately in a country too far down the GOP/Dem socialist path.

 

So we are left with the political reality of compromise as intended in a two party system. And at the moment there's a debate going on between the big government GOP and big government Dems, while Libertarians go to conventions as a marginalized minority.

No.

 

How does more gun control fit into your plan to take back liberty? Is that not the opposite?

Edited by FireChan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to complain.

 

Oh, please. You're a SoProg. You don't know how to complain. The only thing you know to do is sit down, shut up, do what you're told, post what you're given to post, then get in the kitchen and make your overlords some pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

How does more gun control fit into your plan to take back liberty? Is that not the opposite?

It is. Compromise is nice when deciding where to go to lunch, but in this case it just gets you further and further from your goal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYTIMES places Garland to the left of Kagan, Breyer, slightly to right of Ginsberg,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region&_r=0

 

 

 

Moderate .......... :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please. You're a SoProg. You don't know how to complain. The only thing you know to do is sit down, shut up, do what you're told, post what you're given to post, then get in the kitchen and receive from your overlords some creampies.

Fixed it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...