Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Justice Scalia deadFollow

#52 Feb 17 2016 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
article wrote:
They say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.
Holy crap Obama has been trying to kill me regularly since I was ten.
The resort owner actually said that the pillow was "on his head", by which he meant (and clarified) that it was smushed in between Scalia's head and the headboard rather than his head resting on the pillow. The "covering his face" part is pure conspiracy fantasy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Feb 17 2016 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The "covering his face" part is pure conspiracy fantasy.
Not the part where the secret Kenyan Muslim has a hit squad of ancient BC era Roman assassins to kill anyone with chloroform pillows that might keep him from taking guns away at the end of his presidency?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#54 Feb 17 2016 at 3:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Look around you man! The signs are all there! You think the ancient BC era Roman assassins would leave a pillow on Scalia's face??
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Feb 17 2016 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
They might, if they were Corinthian pillars.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#56 Feb 17 2016 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts


Reminds me of all those political cartoons where Republicans are elephants with flushed faces and swirlies for eyes and are foaming at the mouth and flailing their arms wildly all over the place. We really need more of those.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#57 Feb 17 2016 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Look around you man! The signs are all there! You think the ancient BC era Roman assassins would leave a pillow on Scalia's face??

Samira wrote:
They might, if they were Corinthian pillars.


Or even if they were made out of Rich Corinthian Leathers!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#58 Feb 17 2016 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Samira wrote:
They might, if they were Corinthian pillars.
Kaolian, dat choo?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#59 Feb 17 2016 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Yes; but that was when they were trying to get Robert Bork confirmed. TOTALLY different thing. Because REAGAN.


It was also written at a time when there was a prevailing belief that the court could be at least relatively ideologically neutral. Since then, there's been a concerted effort by the Left to effectively stack the court with justices who will simply rubber stamp their agenda, so yeah, times change.

Interesting tidbit I heard over the last few days. 20% of the public polls as thinking that the court is too conservative. 37% poll that it is too liberal. So I'm not sure if Obama attempting to push through a liberal justice to replace Scalia will resonate with the masses the way some might think. I'm sure he'll get all the cover in the media he needs for this, but the reality is that a lot of people have been very very upset with a number of recent cases that are viewed as solely ideological.

The ugliest part of this is all of the cheering going on among many liberal sites and sources. A friend of mine, who's pretty active in social media (mostly musicians she follows) was shocked at how crass many people were. As if you can't disagree with someone without needing to label them "evil", and thus cheer at their death. Pretty sad really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Feb 17 2016 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The right would be well served to vote in a moderate before the election, just sayin'. President Clinton or President Sanders would have less pressure to propose someone closer to center.

And every President tries to pack the Court, it's been that way since there's been a Court.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#61 Feb 17 2016 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Word on the street is Srinivasan is on the short list; he passed his appointment 97-0 last time. It would be fairly difficult for the R-squad to hold that up.


There's a world of difference between confirming someone to be a district judge (or whatever level he's at), and supreme court justice. And there's also a world of difference based on whom you are replacing on that court. Hence, while the usual suspects did their usual saber rattling about the confirmations of Kagan and Sotomayor, both were confirmed in a reasonable amount of time. Both were replacing previous liberal justices, which did not upset the previous balance on the court, so the right did not obstruct that. If Obama appoints another liberal to replace Scalia though, that's just not going to wash, since that would massively tip the balance.

I am a bit annoyed by McConnells chest pounding insistence that the Senate would block any nominee Obama sent. Yes, I get that everyone's assuming that Obama would never appoint anyone who would be an ideological replacement for Scalia, but the public doesn't necessarily get that. Bit of an optics problem on his part (which he's always had IMO).

To be honest, what the GOPs in the Senate should do is generate their own short list of acceptable candidates to replace Scalia and then hand them to Obama as suggestions. Then make a public statement to this fact and say that if Obama really wants to fill the empty seat in a timely manner, all he has to do is pick someone on the list, and they'll confirm that person. Of course, if Obama's goal is just to create a fight and try to blame it on conservatives, then he'll pick someone he knows they wont confirm (which, lets be honest, is what he's actually doing here). Point is that you get ahead of the issue and turn Obama's own language on himself. If he thinks it's his constitutional duty to fill that vacancy than part of that duty requires him to select someone that he believes the Senate will confirm. If he chooses someone he knows they wont confirm, then he's not fulfilling his duty. Or some language to that effect.

Of course, for this to work, they'd need to make sure that list contains at least one woman and one person of color. Otherwise, the Left will turn it back around into the stereotypical "old white men conservative" trope, and reject the list on that grounds. Dunno. Either way, I'm not super happy with how they're handling this media wise. As usual, they're falling too much into the "GOP is obstructionist" narrative. But then again, Mitch is a bit thick on that and always has been. The guy seems completely unaware of how his statements actually read in the public's eye.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Feb 17 2016 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
To be honest, what the GOPs in the Senate should do is generate their own short list of acceptable candidates to replace Scalia and then hand them to Obama as suggestions. Then make a public statement to this fact and say that if Obama really wants to fill the empty seat in a timely manner, all he has to do is pick someone on the list, and they'll confirm that person.

Man, I wish you were on the RNC's strategy team Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Feb 17 2016 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
The right would be well served to vote in a moderate before the election, just sayin'. President Clinton or President Sanders would have less pressure to propose someone closer to center.

And every President tries to pack the Court, it's been that way since there's been a Court.


Sure. But the specific liberal/conservative ideological lines we see today didn't start up until the Bork nomination process. Prior to that, there were differences and preferences, but they just weren't as drawn in the sand as they are today. The GOP and DEMs were not so socially ideologically divided until the 1970s or so. It's why, when you look at the social policies of say Eisenhower and compare it to Kennedy maybe, they aren't that different. Economic policy under Nixon wasn't that much separated from that of Johnson.

I could write about how the rise of modern liberalism and the welfare state lead to this chasm, but that would be a different story. Suffice to say that this specific divide is relatively recent, and that the use of stacking the courts has become a go-to methodology for pushing through liberal social policy. Heck. One need look only at gay marriage to see this. Something that has been rejected by the voters in nearly every single state and the legislators in nearly every single sate, but has now become nationwide law of the land, purely because appointed judges decided it should be so. The Left realized sometime around the 1980s that they had failed to win over the public to their point of view and switched to using judges to force the public to comply with it anyway. So yeah, it's kinda important for conservatives to fight against that where and when we can.

Funny thing is that it's not even about the specific "for/against" position on an issue. It's the process of imposing changes itself that is problematic. Scalia's own words echo this. The idea that 9 unelected people should have the power to make such sweeping changes is not democracy at all. The court is supposed to be one check to a democratic system, not the one and only rule makers. But, over time, they have become just that. Pretty soon, we'll have Stallone in a goofy helmet shouting "I AM THE LAW!!!". What? Too much?

Edited, Feb 17th 2016 4:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Feb 17 2016 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
To be honest, what the GOPs in the Senate should do is generate their own short list of acceptable candidates to replace Scalia and then hand them to Obama as suggestions. Then make a public statement to this fact and say that if Obama really wants to fill the empty seat in a timely manner, all he has to do is pick someone on the list, and they'll confirm that person.

Man, I wish you were on the RNC's strategy team Smiley: laugh


Why? I assume you would prefer Obama to appoint a liberal to replace Scalia, right? How does the GOP handing Obama a list of acceptable conservative justices help that? It puts him in the position of either picking off the list, and thus appointing a justice the Right wants, or rejecting it and making himself out to be the one picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight. At the very least, if he does that he loses the whole "I'm just trying to fill the seat in a timely manner" position.

Guess I"m not sure where you're going with this. Would you really be ok with Obama actually appointing another Scalia to the court? I'd love if that were the case, but given your past record, I somehow doubt it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Feb 17 2016 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts

Guess the good Reverend Jonathan Whirley finally got his parole.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#66 Feb 17 2016 at 6:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why? I assume you would prefer Obama to appoint a liberal to replace Scalia, right? How does the GOP handing Obama a list of acceptable conservative justices help that?

It would be a messaging disaster. Probably even worse than McConnell's terrible "We'll allow no one never!" statement.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Feb 17 2016 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why? I assume you would prefer Obama to appoint a liberal to replace Scalia, right? How does the GOP handing Obama a list of acceptable conservative justices help that?

It would be a messaging disaster. Probably even worse than McConnell's terrible "We'll allow no one never!" statement.


How so?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Feb 17 2016 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How so?

It's the prerogative of the president to choose nominees, not to have a list of acceptable nominees chosen for him. The aura of trying to delegitimize the privilege of the presidency and the patronization evident would be amazing. It's saying "You know that job you have? We know you can't be trusted do it so we're going to do it for you and you should thank us because otherwise we just won't let you do anything at all."

I get that you came up with this brainstorm and think it's brilliant and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. It would be a disaster for the GOP and I would love it if they had tried this. Rather than try and debate it with me, I want you to do everything in your power to make this a reality so we can both be happy.

Edited, Feb 17th 2016 7:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Feb 17 2016 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
To be honest, what the GOPs in the Senate should do is generate their own short list of acceptable candidates to replace Scalia and then hand them to Obama as suggestions.
And then when/if the next Republican president is in a position to nominate an SCJ, he/she has to pick from a list provided by the Democrats, right?Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#70 Feb 17 2016 at 7:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Of course not. Republicans pick bastions of judicial wisdom for the high court; only Democratic presidents select on ideological grounds.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Feb 17 2016 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
I'm curious as to exactly what year it was when gbaji decided every terrible thing that happens in the US is all the Democrats fault.


Seriously; I want to know that.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#72 Feb 17 2016 at 7:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
There have been over a hundred nominees, and 80% of them have been rejected, withdrawn under duress or deferred indefinitely (poor John Tyler couldn't get ANYONE onto the court). Most of those were because of issues in the current political climate - people were afraid this one would favor Western mining and range issues, or that one was in the pocket of the bankers. Whatever.

The issues change but the truly ridiculous partisan politics are part of the fabric of history.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#73 Feb 17 2016 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm curious as to exactly what year it was when gbaji decided every terrible thing that happens in the US is all the Democrats fault.


Seriously; I want to know that.


2007-2009

Approximately,
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#74 Feb 17 2016 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Word on the street is Srinivasan is on the short list; he passed his appointment 97-0 last time. It would be fairly difficult for the R-squad to hold that up.
There's a world of difference between confirming someone to be a district judge (or whatever level he's at), and supreme court justice.


Gonna stop you right there, before you buffalo into something wholly retarded.

This guy is a judge of the court right below the Supreme Court. He has tried many cases before the Supreme Court, and been a part of some fairly prestigious cases.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#75 Feb 17 2016 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I'm curious as to exactly what year it was when gbaji decided every terrible thing that happens in the US is all the Democrats fault.


Seriously; I want to know that.


2007-2009

Approximately,
I've read older (ie. before 2007, when I got here) posts by him and I'm pretty sure it was before that.


...not that his raging racism didn't kick in pretty hard `2007-8.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#76 Feb 17 2016 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
It's not racism, it's xenophobia. There is a difference.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 298 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (298)