Merrick Garland to be nominated by Obama for Scalia's SCOTUS seat

[wmw999 2,149]

What is the point of waiting then? Are we missing it, or just disagreeing?

I see the issue as preferring a centrist over someone farther over to either side in the SC. I'd rather see early picks go that way, too.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

What is so wrong with waiting for a new president who will have to live down their nomination for 4 years vs someone who is going out and can throw up anyone?

I personally see many things that are not what the status quo is when politicans are leaving office especially sketchy pardons. I have no problem with waiting.

Unlike pardons, supreme court nominations require confirmation by the senate. While an outgoing president could, in theory, "throw up anyone", that person would have to pass muster with the senate. In effect, by insisting on waiting, you are saying that the senate is not capable of vetting a candidate. In that case, why bother with senate confirmations at all, why not have the president appoint people directly to the supreme court? Would you consider that to be an acceptable resolution to this dispute?

In the event that a Democrat wins in November, and the Democrats manage to take back the senate, they could indeed "throw up anyone". Imagine Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson on the Supreme Court. I think it is quite revealing that Republicans are willing to risk that, and refuse to even consider an excellent moderate nominee, just to gain a "win" in their block-Obama-in-everything campaign. ODS indeed.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

wmw999

What is the point of waiting then? Are we missing it, or just disagreeing?

I see the issue as preferring a centrist over someone farther over to either side in the SC. I'd rather see early picks go that way, too.

Wendy P.

I want to see someone who respects and follows the Constitution. Would that be a centrist to you?

Regarding the Senate
They are just following Joe Biden's and Chuck Schumer's advise.
Now that is compromising

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

I want to see someone who respects and follows the Constitution.

But you also want the constitution not to be respected now, and no confirmation hearings take place until after the election.

So do you want somebody who will respect and follow the constitution, or do you want someone who agrees with your "opinion" of the constitution?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

I want to see someone who respects and follows the Constitution.

But you also want the constitution not to be respected now, and no confirmation hearings take place until after the election.

So do you want somebody who will respect and follow the constitution, or do you want someone who agrees with your "opinion" of the constitution?

You show me what part of the Constitution requires any timeline to confirm or deny and appointment! (making the point in the context of this thread in case you missed it)

You cant!

As others have said here
Elections have consequences
Obama LOST the senate
Now he and his followers will just have to live with that

And the Senate is only doing what Biden and Schumer said when Bush was the President

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,147]

rushmc

***

Quote

I want to see someone who respects and follows the Constitution.

But you also want the constitution not to be respected now, and no confirmation hearings take place until after the election.

So do you want somebody who will respect and follow the constitution, or do you want someone who agrees with your "opinion" of the constitution?

You show me what part of the Constitution requires any timeline to confirm or deny and appointment! (making the point in the context of this thread in case you missed it)

You cant!

As others have said here
Elections have consequences
Obama LOST the senate
Now he and his followers will just have to live with that

And the Senate is only doing what Biden and Schumer said when Bush was the President

Not having hearings is unprecedented. It is also against the spirit of the constitution. I don't care which party does what.

It will be interesting to hear your arguments once Hillary becomes President and announces she will wait with a nomination until after mid-term elections.

I am also still waiting for you to back up your implication that Merrick Garland is a 2nd Amendment nut.

[rushmc 18]

You are getting very lazy it seems


http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-anti-gun-record/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Have you read the Federalist Papers?
Or any of the letters that were sent through out the country papers when the founders were debating what should be in the Constitution and why?

If your answer is no

You have no idea of what the spirit of the Constitution is

So, Have you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,352]

Southsidedvr

Take obama, Garland, and politics out of the equation. What is so wrong with waiting for a new president who will have to live down their nomination for 4 years vs someone who is going out and can throw up anyone?

I personally see many things that are not what the status quo is when politicans are leaving office especially sketchy pardons. I have no problem with waiting.

Now turn politics back on. I would be happy if he were nominated, but let the new president do it.

Quote

I knew someone would miss the point, never would have thought you guys would be 3/3.

What exactly is the point?

That the Supreme Court should be limited because the Rs are throwing a temper tantrum?

That Obama shouldn't do his job because he has less than a year left?

Just because there is an election coming up, that doesn't stop the SC from doing it's job. They will be in session this fall, as usual. Why shouldn't there be a full slate of justices?

When in the past has the Senate refused to even consider a nominee?

I guess I make it 4/4.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

It will be interesting to hear your arguments once Hillary becomes President and announces she will wait with a nomination until after mid-term elections.

ooooh - that would take the crapulence to the next level even.

The reps would have to counter with agreeing to hold the hearings, starting them in November, but no decisions until after the election to see who the next president would be.

Of course, in a two party system we NEVER get both parties being bigger and bigger pricks over time. I'm sure they learn from each other and it gets better and more efficient over time...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

wolfriverjoe

That Obama shouldn't do his job because he has less than a year left?

of course not, just like he did his job and submitted a decent and balanced budget each of the last 8 years

these guys decide what they choose to do and what they don't choose to do. and it has nothing to do with running the government and getting things done for the sake of the people. as soon as we acknowledge that applies to both sides and stop cherry picking each individual scenario to choose to debate on....until then, this forum is no better than congress (I'm kidding, it's more entertaining, but no less petty)

no surprise that the the visible position of president is the first to show it's totally broken and getting worse


"They did it first" "They do it worse" are really lame arguments - of course they did, THAT's WHAT THEY DO. At some point, someone has to choose to not do that crap any more. Of course Obama's pick is political, or course the Senate is being political. that's who they are.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Quote

of course not, just like he did his job and submitted a decent and balanced budget each of the last 8 years

As an aside, Obama has submitted budget proposals. The fact that the House directs them straight to the trash doesn't mean they weren't submitted.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,147]

rushmc

You are getting very lazy it seems


http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-anti-gun-record/

Do you know that one of the other judges who voted with Merrick Garland in that case is very pro gun rights?

[SkyDekker 1,147]

rushmc

Have you read the Federalist Papers?
Or any of the letters that were sent through out the country papers when the founders were debating what should be in the Constitution and why?

If your answer is no

You have no idea of what the spirit of the Constitution is

So, Have you?

Yes, the spirit of the constitution was that black people are worth significantly less than white people.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

***Have you read the Federalist Papers?
Or any of the letters that were sent through out the country papers when the founders were debating what should be in the Constitution and why?

If your answer is no

You have no idea of what the spirit of the Constitution is

So, Have you?

Yes, the spirit of the constitution was that black people are worth significantly less than white people.

You should really read up on why that was done
The absolute ignorance on this topic is astounding as the goal of the northern states was to end slavery!

From the link

Quote

The goal of the Northern delegates was to dilute Southern voting strength so as to outlaw slavery by constitutional means. “The struggle that took place in the convention was between the Southern delegates trying to strengthen the constitutional supports for slavery and the Northern delegates trying to weaken them.”2 If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position—47 percent. Robert L. Goldwin concludes:

[T]he point is that the “three-fifths clause” had nothing at all to do with measuring the human worth of blacks. Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count “equally with the Whites,” not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the pro-slavery voting power in Congress. The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.3

https://americanvision.org/3918/the-original-constitution-and-the-three-fifths-myth/

And you have not read any of those letters
Have you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Yes, the spirit of the constitution was that black people are worth significantly less than white people.

I got to comment to this again

The stupidity and ignorance of this statement is astounding for one who says he read the Federalist Papers as well as other letters written to debate the construction of the US Constitution

Wow

Just fucking wow

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Typical Rush. Asking for some one to read the original and then linking to editorial by a website with the following mission:

Quote

American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation.

With a vision to:

Quote

An America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life, where Christians apply a Biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be again a “city on a hill” drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom.

You never learn do you?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Typical Rush. Asking for some one to read the original and then linking to editorial by a website with the following mission:

Quote

American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation.

With a vision to:

***An America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life, where Christians apply a Biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be again a “city on a hill” drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom.

You never learn do you?



So you are defending your ignorance of the topic

Got it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Now back to you claiming Merrick Garland is a 2nd Amendment nut.

Do you think the judges who agreed with him in those two cases you brought forward are 2nd Amendment nuts as well?

You may want to look through some non-biased material before answering. I don't want you to start claiming you were tricked again.

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi rush,

Quote

You show me what part of the Constitution requires any timeline to confirm or deny and appointment!

You show me just one post by John Kallend where he is wrong on the facts.

You simply cannot.

Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 18]

Trying to be slippery so you don't have to address your ignorance of the topic YOU posted, or you less than truthful claim that you read the Federalist papers regarding the constitution.

Nor have I been tricked here or ignorant of a topic here which is more than you can say huh?

Quote

The issue of slavery was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention and was discussed at length in the debates. A significant minority of the delegates to the Federal Convention were staunch opponents of slavery, primarily those who adhered to the Federalist philosophy. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery. John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was president of the New York anti-slavery society. Northern Federalist leaders Rufus King and Gouvernour Morris were outspoken opponents of slavery and the slave trade.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,435]

>I want to see someone who respects and follows the Constitution. Would that be a centrist to you?

Well, no. You have said in the past that you disagree with several aspects of the Constitution. So I suspect you want to see someone who agrees with your interpretation of the constitution - which, per your interpretations posted here, would be someone far to the right.

[DanG 1]

Regardless of the politics, can we at least agree that Merrick Garland is an awesome name?

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

Trying to be slippery so you don't have to address your ignorance of the topic YOU posted, or you less than truthful claim that you read the Federalist papers regarding the constitution.

Uhm, no. Actually I asked that before that side issue was brought up.

So, you going to answer it?

[jakee 1,259]

Southsidedvr

I knew someone would miss the point, never would have thought you guys would be 3/3.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they missed the point.

Having said that, I think you've missed the point. The thing that is wrong with waiting until the next President is that the post is open now. The Supreme Court does actually do stuff, and it works better when they have the number of judges they're supposed to have. Stopping the Supreme Court from working as well as it should because you're playing politics and waiting for what might be a better environment to get the type of judge you want is just petulant - and dressing it up as 'concern for the voters' is downright dishonest.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?