+- Red Dot Arms Forum (https://rdaforum.com)
+-- Forum: The Gun Counter (https://rdaforum.com/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Whats in the news? (https://rdaforum.com/forum-68.html)
+--- Thread: Supreme Court (/thread-2262.html)
Supreme Court - LisaJarratt - 02-15-2016
Scalia replacement: It's Armageddon
Judicial giant Antonin Scalia died on Saturday. He was a towering intellect and powerful force for constitutional jurisprudence. He will be impossible to replace. The best we will be able to do is come close.
VERY IMPORTANT FOR ANY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE! I am betting that they will do everything in their power NOT to wait. What a dreaded thing. And I think there will be a certain senator from IL who will vote for the Obama appointee. Admittedly: I think I morned what would be coming, the same if now more than his death.
RE: Supreme Court - British Gunner - 02-15-2016
Given the Obama appointments the Republicans have voted for, this is a very scary time.
RE: Supreme Court - bradberry - 02-16-2016
we have interesting times ahead of us on this one.
RE: Supreme Court - ssphoto - 02-16-2016
Seems to me that since there is a vacancy now, and that we shouldn't have to wait a full year before a replacement is made, it makes sense the Obama should act accordingly and nominate per his duty. It does not make sense, now that Republicans are now seeing what could be a huge negative for them that they suggest Obama let whomever gets into the Whitehouse decide. That doesn't make sense. Although I disagree with Obama in most respects, I am certain, if the tables were turned, that Democrats would be crying foul, too. No, let him nominate a replacement and let the process of vetting and review begin. An eight judge court is not a good idea, for obvious reasons.
RE: Supreme Court - Dutz - 02-17-2016
(02-16-2016, 10:28 AM)ssphoto Wrote: Seems to me that since there is a vacancy now, and that we shouldn't have to wait a full year before a replacement is made, it makes sense the Obama should act accordingly and nominate per his duty. It does not make sense, now that Republicans are now seeing what could be a huge negative for them that they suggest Obama let whomever gets into the Whitehouse decide. That doesn't make sense. Although I disagree with Obama in most respects, I am certain, if the tables were turned, that Democrats would be crying foul, too. No, let him nominate a replacement and let the process of vetting and review begin. An eight judge court is not a good idea, for obvious reasons.
I have to disagree.
When Reagan nominated Bork, the Dems delayed an entire year before Reagan nominated another person. And Bork was the smartest and most qualified in 70 years.
Shumer said we should not approve any Bush nominee when Bush still had 18 months left.
The Constitution gives the President the power and right to nominate whomever he chooses and it gives Congress the right to tell the President to go pound sand and not approve it.
All of it is reasonable. The idea that we automatically approve whomever the President nominates is relatively new and relatively stupid. And by stupid I mean see Sotomayor - a hack, a moron, and an idiot, yet she sits on the bench and Bork couldn't get a vote.
RE: Supreme Court - ssphoto - 02-17-2016
(02-17-2016, 09:01 AM)Dutz Wrote:(02-16-2016, 10:28 AM)ssphoto Wrote: Seems to me that since there is a vacancy now, and that we shouldn't have to wait a full year before a replacement is made, it makes sense the Obama should act accordingly and nominate per his duty. It does not make sense, now that Republicans are now seeing what could be a huge negative for them that they suggest Obama let whomever gets into the Whitehouse decide. That doesn't make sense. Although I disagree with Obama in most respects, I am certain, if the tables were turned, that Democrats would be crying foul, too. No, let him nominate a replacement and let the process of vetting and review begin. An eight judge court is not a good idea, for obvious reasons.
I have to disagree.
When Reagan nominated Bork, the Dems delayed an entire year before Reagan nominated another person. And Bork was the smartest and most qualified in 70 years.
Shumer said we should not approve any Bush nominee when Bush still had 18 months left.
The Constitution gives the President the power and right to nominate whomever he chooses and it gives Congress the right to tell the President to go pound sand and not approve it.
All of it is reasonable. The idea that we automatically approve whomever the President nominates is relatively new and relatively stupid. And by stupid I mean see Sotomayor - a hack, a moron, and an idiot, yet she sits on the bench and Bork couldn't get a vote.
Good points, I was only suggesting that it's silly to automatically start throwing an automatic NO, before Obama even picks someone. They should see who he nominates first.
RE: Supreme Court - rwhite135 - 02-17-2016
It will be someone that we don't want on the court so the word NO should be heaved his way now.
RE: Supreme Court - British Gunner - 02-17-2016
I have to agree, given Obama's track record there is no need to know who he will put forward. We all know the kind of person he will put up for the court. I guess on a positive note, it only took 71/2 years of Obama's presidency to acknowledge we should follow the Constitution.
RE: Supreme Court - Dutz - 02-18-2016
And we don't want to be reminded that from Nov. 1969 to May of 1970 there were only 8 justices because the dem's rejected two of Nixon's nominees, and in 1987 there were only 8 while the dem's delayed on Bork before finally rejecting him.
The senate will cave because McConnell still hasn't found his one testicle. And the search for Elvis, Hoffa, Bigfoot, and McConnell's other testicle still continues.
RE: Supreme Court - bradberry - 02-18-2016
No appointee for O:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/brutal-meme-exposes-dem-hypocrisy-on-scotus-appointments