Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by HeHasTheJazzHands, Feb 13, 2016.
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that letter.
Being christian (which I am not) has nothing to do with it. The man actively tried to to take people's rights and make this country a worse place. Just because someone dies doesnt mean I have to be respectful of anything. He was a bad dude.
The Onion did a funny piece on him yesterday and all the people who I've regularly seen complaining about the world pussifying and becoming overly PC were now getting upset over the article. Oh, sweet irony.
Yeah, I'm thinking even a lot of conservatives thought he was pushing his interpretation too far. I'm more liberal now than u used to be, but even then I always had the feeling you get when your team cheats and wins. You're glad they won, but you're also like, "holy ...., I can't believe they did that!" I primarily have a problem with people playing with the rules, regardless of where they stand on issues. I respect a lot of staunch conservatives, libertarians, socialists, and democrats. But I cannot stand those who bend the rules to make it work for them. That's why I hate Hillary Clinton. It's also why I didn't like Scalia.
Not celebrating his death, but by no means mourning it either. That man made himself the enemy of pretty much anyone that isn't a white christian cis male. His targeting of women, LGBTs, and other minorities is unprecedented in recent times and he often proved that he was willing to ignore the law in favor of conservative politics and I wouldn't be surprised if he took some "christian donations" in exchange for more favorable rulings like such as Hobby Lobby and Citizens United.
Not that it matters though, but on the news they pointed out that the last time we had a situation where a president nominated a SCJ against a Senate that was lead by the opposing party during an Election year was, surprise surprise, during the Reagan administration with Anthony Kennedy. And Mitch McConnell, the man who said an outgoing President shouldn't be able to nominate a SJC, for voted for him. And Kennedy got elected.
Just goes to show more Republican kicking and screaming, hypocrisy and political do-nothingness. If anything I think them continually shooting down a nomination will hurt them for the Presidency more than help them.
Can you imagine if they did delay until after the election and Bernie Sanders was president? Their worst fears of a pot-smoking Mexican muslim trans woman hippie communist zombie put in the SCOTUS would come to fruition!
...or maybe just someone who'd overturn Citizens United. But I like my version better.
Yeah, I think the Senate might have a thing or two to say about that.
Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia - The Onion - America's Finest News Source
Extreme right winger who had too much power and influence dies? Praise Cthulhu!
I don't typically besmirch or speak ill of the dead, but what a weird looking guy he was.
It's funny how those on the Right are more or less telling Obama to put the gun down calmly. The suggestion that a President leaving office shouldn't appoint a replacement makes literally no sense - he's still IN office, so where is the line drawn? Isn't he always leaving office then? Are his presidential duties now simplified or lessened because we're all focused on the upcoming election? Saying these things demonstrates the liberal (ironic pun) use of BS logic by those on the Right, and is most likely going to hurt them in the short run. The President should be the one to appoint Scalia's replacement, and Obama is the President.
^^^ Here's what I don't get: the Republicans control the Senate. They can easily throw up a ton of procedural hurdles to delay any nominee that Obama advances, and they've got the votes to defeat a nominee in a straight up-or-down vote if it comes to that. What's the advantage to arguing that it would be inappropriate for him to nominate someone? Is this just part of the "executive overreach" narrative that they keep trying to spin around his presidency? Is it a tactic to fire up the base in advance of the general election (they hardly seem to need it)?
Pretty much. I think they know it would be a bit of political suicide for the party to just shoot down nominees left and right for the sake of being difficult so they want to convince everyone that he shouldn't be nominating anyone anyway.
but when Bush was in office Schumer and Obama tried to fillibuster his nominee in 2006?
But this was "different" right because it was the Dems blocking?
Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee | Washington Examiner
I get Scalia was a polarizing figure and the left hated him...I get that, but the political play Obama made
yesterday about calling out the Repubs is as hypocritical as it gets
10 Times Democrats Vowed To Block Republican Nominees
Of the 10 instances given in that link, eight of them involve opposition to a *specific* nominee, rather than opposing nominations in general, which is what the GOP is doing now. The remaining two include a statement by a single senator (Chuck Schumer) about an *entirely hypothetical* vacancy during the remainder of the Bush presidency, and a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolution from 1960, which was an objection to further use of the *recess* appointment, rather than an objection to *any* nomination in a president's final year in office (more info at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415). I don't see the equivalence here.
Since when are either parties not hypocritical at one point or another. Bush's nominee's made it through despite all the nonsense and people abusing their position doesn't make it an acceptable activity just because more than one individual has done so now or in the past. Obama is not in the wrong here, hypocritical or not. He is the president, it's essentially the beginning of the year, and it's his job to nominate someone. The republicans are trying to avoid a $hit show by making it seem like Obama is behaving unethically if he nominates someone because they know if they just continually shoot him down, or tell the public they're just going to shoot him down, it'll hurt their party, since everyone already considers this group 'do nothing congress'. If they can convince people the nominations are unethical by sheer existence it makes them look less horrible to naive people. The Democrats weren't in the right in 2007 either, but that hardly means this should just become the norm. That sets quite a bad precedent. This is one of the very few powers a president is allowed to exercise. He won his election both terms by popular vote. There isn't a valid argument for waiting IMO.
A bit of semantics, but they were displeased with his nominee, not that he nominated in general. Semantics because they likely would have disapproved of any of his choices for his second nominee since Bush pushed hard for evangelicals in his second term. Still quite a bit different than the thinly veiled threat of obstructionism that has come to define today's Republican party with anything Obama related.
This also paints an entirely different picture of the events at hand during the time.
Objections to specific nominees are highly different than a categorical ban announced the day of the vacancy before any names are announced.
It's really not hypocritical.
For maximum trollage, so the Republicans can scream more about having things "rammed down their throats."
I'm not kidding, that phrase is used a LOT for a group so fiercely homophobic. The jokes write themselves.
(I'd vote for anyone who will make Justice Takei happen, lack of legal experience be damned)