Scalia has died

[oneforthebus]

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist but it does seem odd that they would declare this natural causes without an autopsy, or even a medical examination. Just for the fact that he is such an important public figure, you would think great pains would be taken to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Probably just incompetence but still odd...

 

[Tibs]

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the circus Republicans have created in the wake of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Pay no attention. Here are the 4 realities:

1. Under the Constitution, when a Supreme Court vacancy arises, the President is authorized to nominate whomever he or she wishes to fill that vacancy. A majority of the Senate must then confirm in order for that nominee to become a Supreme Court Justice.

2. The Republicans now hold a majority of 54 in the Senate. Each of the 54 (as well as every other Senator) has a constitutional right to vote on the President's nomination. If just 4 Republicans vote in favor of it, and all 44 Democrats and the Senate’s 2 Independents also vote in favor, and the president of the Senate (Vice President Joe Biden), casts the deciding vote in favor, then the nominee is confirmed.

3. The Constitution does not give the majority leader of the Senate the right to hold up a vote on the President's nomination. He cannot usurp the rights of senators to cast such a vote.

4. Everything you have heard other than these three points -- all the blather and bluster coming from Mitch McConnell or any other Republican senator, from Republican presidential hopefuls, and from right-wing pundits -- is irrelevant.

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=ts

 

[Superman]

so we're to ***** and moan about Republicans towing their party line while completely ignoring that the Democrats in the Senate will be doing the same?

If just 4 Republicans vote in favor of it, and all 44 Democrats and the Senate’s 2 Independents also vote in favor

 

[Tibs]

so we're to ***** and moan about Republicans towing their party line while completely ignoring that the Democrats in the Senate will be doing the same?

I would guess he's presuming Obama nominates a viable, legitimate candidate. Those ranting about impeding the vote at this stage don't even know who Obama will nominate! They're suggesting obstructing the nomination out of blind hatred of Obama and a debilitating fear of anything coming from the progressive, liberal left.

 

[Coach]

Multiple sources reporting Scalia died in his sleep on a hunting trip

Perhaps the best Republican in the past 20 years.... A brilliant legal mind. Respected in spite where you stand on the political spectrum and one of Ronald Reagan's best moves ever.

RIP, he'll be missed. While the media has gloom and doom, I, for one thing, this could be the galvanising moment needed to draw massive turnout for the 2016 elections.

The 2nd Amendment, abortion, quota, and such can swing far to the left without Scalia.

 

[21STEELERS21]

The funny thing is that even though you have right and left leaning justices, they agree unanimously on 70% of decisions and
the other 30% of decisions have little impact on most peoples lives. I can't think of any recent decision that has had any impact
on me personally.

 

[Coach]

The funny thing is that even though you have right and left leaning justices, they agree unanimously on 70% of decisions and
the other 30% of decisions have little impact on most peoples lives. I can't think of any recent decision that has had any impact
on me personally.

Obama care? Give it time, it will impact you.

The company I work for was hit with a luxury tax because they offer good insurance. The result has been a slight downgrade in insurance.

I can see new rulings on the 2nd amendment, flag burning being legal, and racial quotas becoming laws. I can also see more bureaucracy against USA coperations in general.

 

[Superman]

I would guess he's presuming Obama nominates a viable, legitimate candidate. Those ranting about impeding the vote at this stage don't even know who Obama will nominate! They're suggesting obstructing the nomination out of blind hatred of Obama and a debilitating fear of anything coming from the progressive, liberal left.

you're right. Obama always does precisely what is fair and middle of the road on the political spectrum.

 

[oneforthebus]

The funny thing is that even though you have right and left leaning justices, they agree unanimously on 70% of decisions and
the other 30% of decisions have little impact on most peoples lives. I can't think of any recent decision that has had any impact
on me personally.

Well, my husband was just involved in one that would have potentially made your electricity rates soar through the roof. Scalia dissented actually in his typical lively fashion. Interesting case that most people will never hear about. FERC vs. EPSA

 

[Steeltime]

The 2nd Amendment, abortion, quota, and such can swing far to the left without Scalia.

The court is now a closely-divided court, with 2 justices that can accurately be described as conservative (Thomas and Roberts), one who leans conservative but who is clearly not properly categorized as "conservative" (Alito), one centrist who leans neither right nor left for the most part (Kennedy), one who is centrist but leans left (Breyer), and 3 who are very, very liberal (Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg). Bomma does not have a good resume in terms of nominating justices ... Ginsburg was horrible. Another Ginsburg changes the court significantly.

Second, the process for the court to hear cases requires that four justices give consent. This is an undervalued power that another Bomma nominee would wield. The court would now have four very liberal judges who could then take up any case or cause they want, while having the power to control the court's calendar.

 

[Tibs]

The court would now have four very liberal judges who could then take up any case or cause they want, while having the power to control the court's calendar.

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

bO said today that "the constitution is pretty clear" ....that he is selecting the spot. Funny. I didn't know he knew what that document was.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

There is something seriously broken with our public policy system when a Supreme Court appointee is this important.

 

[Spike]

Typical Dem hypocrite

Obama: Who Cares if I Filibustered Alito, Republicans Have to Vote on My SCOTUS Nominee

 

[ZonaBurgh]

I would guess he's presuming Obama nominates a viable, legitimate candidate. Those ranting about impeding the vote at this stage don't even know who Obama will nominate! They're suggesting obstructing the nomination out of blind hatred of Obama and a debilitating fear of anything coming from the progressive, liberal left.

Not to fear, I heard there's a petition to the President to nominate Anita Hill. All is well!

 

[oneforthebus]

Hilarious to hear all these libs out there screaming "BUT IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION...." How do they say that with a straight face after the last several years of pretty much ignoring everything else it says in the Constitution?

Sometimes I still just shake my head at the fact that we got to the point in this country where the federal government can force me to buy a product from a private company. a product that I don't want, with a ton of features I don't need, at whatever price they tell me I have to pay. It's insane.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=ts

What does the midget think about Sanctuary Cities where they intentionally break federal law? Oh but that's different

 

[swal75]

There's probably some solution that could be reached if Ginsberg were to retire and each side got to pick one. Otherwise I don't think the Dems have anything worth trading at this point in order to get a justice approved.

 

[ark steel]

Elizabeth Warren Humiliates Mitch McConnell For Threat To Block Obama SCOTUS Nominee
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...s-mcconnell-pres-obama-won-million-votes.html

After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that he would lead Republicans in obstructing President Obama yet again, this time by leading his party to abdicate their Constitutional duties, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) reminded McConnell that President Obama’s will is the will of the people and that he won by five million votes.

Senator Warren said in a statement,“Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did – when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

Then Warren proceeded to remind McConnell about that thing Republicans are always claiming to worship – the Constitution, specifically Article II, “Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

Wait for it…“I can’t find a clause that says ‘…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.'”

Warren reminded McConnell that Republicans took an oath just like Democrats did and if they fail to do their duty, their talk about loving the Constitution is empty, “Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that – empty talk.”

Senator Warren is absolutely correct. The idea that Republicans get to obstruct the power of the presidency invested in Obama by the people in not one but two elections is outrageous.

To this meme, I would counter that there is overwhelming evidence that the voters gave Congressional control back to the GOP, specifically, to stop Obama's agenda. The 2012 election was for President not for King. The Dems lost everything else since 2008 and only got the Presidency because the GOP leadership had their heads up their *** with a Pres/VP ticket that didn't even win their home states.

 

[Rod Farva]

The court is now a closely-divided court, with 2 justices that can accurately be described as conservative (Thomas and Roberts), one who leans conservative but who is clearly not properly categorized as "conservative" (Alito), one centrist who leans neither right nor left for the most part (Kennedy), one who is centrist but leans left (Breyer), and 3 who are very, very liberal (Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg). Bomma does not have a good resume in terms of nominating justices ... Ginsburg was horrible. Another Ginsburg changes the court significantly.

Second, the process for the court to hear cases requires that four justices give consent. This is an undervalued power that another Bomma nominee would wield. The court would now have four very liberal judges who could then take up any case or cause they want, while having the power to control the court's calendar.

Roberts is NOT a conservative.

bO said today that "the constitution is pretty clear" ....that he is selecting the spot. Funny. I didn't know he knew what that document was.

Hilarious to hear all these libs out there screaming "BUT IT SAYS IN THE CONSTITUTION...." How do they say that with a straight face after the last several years of pretty much ignoring everything else it says in the Constitution?

Sometimes I still just shake my head at the fact that we got to the point in this country where the federal government can force me to buy a product from a private company. a product that I don't want, with a ton of features I don't need, at whatever price they tell me I have to pay. It's insane.

They are "Convenient Constitutionalists."

To this meme, I would counter that there is overwhelming evidence that the voters gave Congressional control back to the GOP, specifically, to stop Obama's agenda. The 2012 election was for President not for King. The Dems lost everything else since 2008 and only got the Presidency because the GOP leadership had their heads up their *** with a Pres/VP ticket that didn't even win their home states.

Yep. In fact a very good case could be made that the most recent election trumps (npi) the latter.

 

[21STEELERS21]

Obamacare wasn't created by the Supreme Court, it went thru Congress. Obama didn't nominate Ginsburg, Clinton did.

The only reason this appointment is perceived as critical is that their is a right-wing fantasy that Roe vs Wade could be overturned someday.
Not going to happen.

If there is no vote on an Obama selection look for him to call on his coalition that got him elected twice to come out and vote for the Democrat in
November in order to get his nominee a vote. This will most definitely greatly increase the black vote for the nominee, than would have taken
place otherwise.

 

[Rod Farva]

Obamacare wasn't created by the Supreme Court, it went thru Congress. Obama didn't nominate Ginsburg, Clinton did.

No, obamacare was basically secretly midnight rammed through a D congress with smoke and mirrors. And now that folks are beginning to feel its effects (or not benefit by it) the bloom is falling off the rose.

The only reason this appointment is perceived as critical is that their is a right-wing fantasy that Roe vs Wade could be overturned someday.
Not going to happen.

Right now RvW is one of the least of the critical issues the SC will be deciding.

If there is no vote on an Obama selection look for him to call on his coalition that got him elected twice to come out and vote for the Democrat in
November in order to get his nominee a vote. This will most definitely greatly increase the black vote for the nominee, than would have taken
place otherwise.

So the multiple vote dead, drug addled homeless and their handlers?

 

[Superman]

http://imgur.com/gallery/trMiKzZ

The passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has had a polarizing influence on the modern world.

Whatever your opinion of him may be, if you identify as a gamer you would at least respect his defense of video games. On June 27th, 2011, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion ruling against the ban on the sale of violent video games in the state of California to minors. California was essentially trying to treat video games like cigarettes and alcohol. Justice Scalia and the other 6 justices saw the slippery slope for all media and not just video games. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to talk about the weather: it is protect the unpopular opinions.

Additionally, Justice Scalia noted the modern compliance of violent deaths of children in classic literature like Hansel and Gretel, or The Lord of the Flies. Later in the opinion Scalia wrote, “This is not to say that minors’ consumption of violent entertainment has never encountered resistance. In the 1800’s, dime novels depicting crime and ‘penny dreadfuls’ (named for their price and content) were blamed in some quarters for juvenile delinquency ... When motion pictures came along, they became the villains instead.” Essentially, Justice Scalia said that juvenile delinquency has always been a thing, and the government can’t just blame whatever media is popular with the youth at the time. Violence in the media has existed as long as the media has. If the government set the precedent that they could determine what books, music, or entertainment is considered “offensive,” the most important stories might never get told. Often, the most important and interesting stories are the ones that are the most uncomfortable to talk about.

The worst part isn’t even the loss of those great stories: think about the abuse it is overall to free speech--it leads to censorship, propaganda, and unchecked government power.

I mean, without this landmark decision there is a good chance that we would have never seen a Deadpool movie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass'n#Opinion

 

[SteelChip]

All them damn politicians are so full of bullshit. It depends what their agenda is to hear their take on the course of action.

Two faced, and totally unabashed hypocrisy.....both sides.

 

[Superman]

.................