Ok.
Wonder what made me think otherwise.
I suppose when one has such a clear picture I assume it to be female.
Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Ok.
Wonder what made me think otherwise.
I suppose when one has such a clear picture I assume it to be female.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Keep your skirt on Nancy. He can nominate all he wants. They are under no obligation to confirm. You lefties established that with Bork. So fuck off
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Excellent. Now let's give them a few minutes to rev up the spin machine.
No spin. He should nominate. They just don't have to confirm. Go fuck yourself
Man up Jarod.......or admit you're just a liar.....you can't have it both ways.....
Lol...OK...whatever you say.
Thus he will wait for a recess. Ergo the 1960 action.
So they will need to stay in session which will be inconvenient for campaigning.
And nobody is wondering why no autopsy ?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
Dems didn't want recess appointment in 1960
The sad state of affairs is that judicial nominations used to be relatively non controversial until the left decided they would use the courts to ram through that which they couldn't legislate. Now that they have opened Pandora's box they are unhappy. Does anyone believe that if the roles were reversed and Ginsberg croaked during a republican administration in its lame duck year people like KKKhristiefan or Gayrod would be clamoring for a confirmation? Negro please
So you can't state your position?
You think it is funny that I don't a religious fundamentalist defining the nature of the Supremes for the coming decades?
Instead of gigling teach me "teacher"
christiefan915
Catalyst
It's not uncommon for people Scalia's age to die in their sleep. And the man had to be at least 40 pounds overweight and was a smoker.
Yeah I pointed that out earlier to rain on j rods parade
Brother, thank you very much.
No. Because you're pig headed, arrogant and act like an idiot when it comes to this stuff so I do like I do most of the time and ignore you. Me stating my position (argued from a religious standpoint) would lead to you giving a condescending response and I would then have to reply to it and it would be a never ending circle. Wisdom is Matthew 7:6 and Matt. 10:14.
I absolutely agree with this. We are going to hear so many conspiracy theories before this is all over. It's crazy. The man was elderly, overweight and smoked. Not a good combination for a long life. He had a decently long one and it appears that it was his time to go.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Obama shall nominate. The Senate shall Advise & Consent. Both have their separate powers.
at the end of the day POTUS wants a nomination passed - lame duck that he is.
at the end of the day the Senate wants to wait - being as POTUS is a lame duck. What do you think will happen?
This is hardly a Constitutional crisis - it is however crass politics. "Elections have consequences" is the guiding principle.
"Elections have consequences..."
Tell that to the partisan hacks suggesting the Senate stonewall anyone Obama nominates for something close to 341 days.
christiefan915
Catalyst
He wasn't feeling well before he went to bed. The owner of the ranch said he was lying peacefully and looked as if he were taking a nap. We should all be so lucky to go that way.
I think the real problem here is that both sides of the argument don't bother to stop and think about what being a Supreme Court Justice should mean - even the Justices don't (Justice Scalia certainly didn't, and said so, saying that they can "favor religion over non-religion").
The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to be objective and steadfast in interpretation of the Constitution and how legislation in the United States measures up to Constitutional standards and requirements. In fact, the role of any judge is to be objective and impartial.
Taking the same-sex marriage case as an example, the approach from both sides was, I believe, simply wrong.
It was not a question of, "Gays should be allowed to marry" v "Gays should not be allowed to marry". It was a question of equality as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitutional guarantee of equality, through the 14th Amendment, is fairly clear, if read objectively: Laws must be leveled equally and not favor one group over another. That's really the end of the argument. If two consenting adults wish to marry, then by the 14th Amendment, they have that right, because marriage is a civil ceremony dictated by law that does not require any religious involvement at all.
So it should have been quite simple: "The 14th Amendment says equal protection under the law. We're done here. LUNCH!"
And that, friends, is the actual role of a Supreme Court Justice - to rule objectively based upon the Constitution.
It was the insertion of religious beliefs that muddied the waters and made the entire situation much more harrowing than it should have been. But that is the nature of our Justices today. None of them interpret objectively based strictly on the Constitution.
That's where the problem lies.
Last edited:
Surely you are confused.
I am a Christian, but not a fundamentalist.
So again, please state what is so obvious.
I assure you I will simply acknowledge it not attack it.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Sure like you are a libertarian. LOL
DARLUNE a Christian. ROFLMAO
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA